THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 30 Sep 2012, 05:31

Title: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 30 Sep 2012, 05:31
And we start things off for a new month with a new poll!

It's also the last week of my 44th year on this planet. YAY!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 30 Sep 2012, 07:24
Or, as my mother would say, you're halfway to 90.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Sep 2012, 09:09
Wait, you said you were turning square. 45 is not a square!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Sep 2012, 09:15
They do own their own bodies. There was a Q&A on Tumblr  that mentioned this. I wonder if Station is an exception.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Sep 2012, 09:24
They do own their own bodies. There was a Q&A on Tumblr  that mentioned this.
I guess the canon discussion's gonna get carried over to this thread?  Assuming they actually do, then I guess Marigold didn't so much buy the new chassis, but loaned Momo the money to buy herself a new chassis.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 30 Sep 2012, 10:01
AnthroPCs owning their bodies is a nice thought. Feels odd that I'm thinking that, since I'm happy that things that (yet) don't exist have rights. It did throw up a few questions in my mind though:

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Sep 2012, 10:27
We have the case of Winslow transferring into the practice boyfriend.  Of course, that was with permission, and he didn't like it much (except for the hands...)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jmucchiello on 30 Sep 2012, 10:41
Wait, you said you were turning square. 45 is not a square!
Sure it is. It's the square of approximately 6.708203932499369

Maybe he meant he was becoming L7 (which looks more like a rhombus, in this font).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Sep 2012, 10:56
Method, you're confusing jwhouk and skewbrow. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Sep 2012, 11:32
I am. They have similar avatars and birthdays, so I guess I saw birthday in one thread and assumed the same person was talking about their birthday here, ha.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 30 Sep 2012, 13:29
Or, as my mother would say, you're halfway to 90.

YB: "Ninety per cent of your trip on this planet is half uphill" the other half is downhill
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Ph2 on 30 Sep 2012, 13:47
They do own their own bodies. There was a Q&A on Tumblr  that mentioned this. I wonder if Station is an exception.

Does Station really even have a body? All we've seen is him projecting, I would hardly call that a body. If he has some sort of solid computer he uses I suppose that would be his body. Otherwise, well, I guess he's like a ghost.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 30 Sep 2012, 13:54
In one sense, Station's "body" is the station itself; any physical computer core(s) would be his brain-analogue. As for ownership, I imagine whoever put the hardware up there, assuming it wasn't J E-C's private fortune, might have things to say on that matter, though I could see them deciding that the computer core(s) are Station's alone and that he is free to leave at any time via the dedicated ejection mechanism.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 30 Sep 2012, 17:21
Method, you're confusing jwhouk and skewbrow.

I was gonna say. I'm not 49 yet.


As to Station: what happens if/when Station's orbit decays to the point where it can't be sustained? Can he switch to an AnthroPC body, or would that be just too much for him?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 30 Sep 2012, 18:33
Yeah, sorry about that, J. As for Station...I don't know, he'd probably have a backup server prepped for him should that ever happen. It's not like they wouldn't know it in advance.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 30 Sep 2012, 18:44
Wouldn't they have thrusters on something that big and expensive to keep the orbit from degrading, though?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 30 Sep 2012, 18:49
At the risk of resurrecting the whole "but which way does it spin?" thread ... yeah, seems you'd want something like that, just for insurance and fine-tuning the orbit. You wouldn't need a delta of more than a few m/s. The station probably avoids the most likely cause of orbital degradation -- atmo drag -- because, judging from Jeph's drawings, it's in high LEO but not quite GEO. I say "probably" because Jeph describes an orbital period of about 90 minutes, consistent with low LEO comparable to the shuttles and ISS in the real world -- and ISS does have orbital-maintenance thrusters.

EDITED to correct last reference from GEO to LEO. Duh.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 30 Sep 2012, 20:34
I'd love to know more about Station, but I suspect we'll have to wait for Jeph to get back around to constructing an arc that includes him. We spent so much (awesome) time up in space, I'm guessing we'll catch up on several of the other story lines that have been back-burnered before going back there.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Sep 2012, 22:48
Jeph said in a Tumblr Q&A that Station is too big to fit on normal server hardware.

AnthroPCs can sell their bodies: Pintsize was pondering what to do with the money if he sold his military-grade hardware and traded down to a civilian model.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 30 Sep 2012, 23:04
Speaking of character Twitter accounts crossing over into the comic...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 30 Sep 2012, 23:04
Quote
This comic may be based on something that actually happened on Marigold's Twitter a few days ago. Warning: actual Borderlands 2 spoilers in that link, click at your own risk.

It's okay, I already saw the hentai comic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 30 Sep 2012, 23:32
Meow
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 30 Sep 2012, 23:36
YB: "Ninety per cent of your trip on this planet is half uphill" the other half is downhill

What about the remaining 10 percent? °O
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sidhekin on 30 Sep 2012, 23:55
YB: "Ninety per cent of your trip on this planet is half uphill" the other half is downhill

What about the remaining 10 percent? °O
Flat.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 01 Oct 2012, 00:36
YB: "Ninety per cent of your trip on this planet is half uphill" the other half is downhill
What about the remaining 10 percent? °O
Flat.
So for 10 percent of your life you don't age? What? Getting increasingly confused here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 01 Oct 2012, 00:53
90% is half uphill... so, 45% is uphill, 45% is downhill, and 10% is flat?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 01 Oct 2012, 02:06
Wouldn't they have thrusters on something that big and expensive to keep the orbit from degrading, though?
I think so. And propulsion technology is more advanced in the QC-verse than in our world, judging from the SSTO space-plane that took Hanners, Marigold and Marten into orbit.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Somebody on 01 Oct 2012, 02:19
Jeph said in a Tumblr Q&A that Station is too big to fit on normal server hardware.
Isn't "Station" just the human subroutine (re: Friday's comic) rather than the whole AI, though? Wouldn't that be severable if it came down to it?

Wouldn't they have thrusters on something that big and expensive to keep the orbit from degrading, though?
I think so. And propulsion technology is more advanced in the QC-verse than in our world, judging from the SSTO space-plane that took Hanners, Marigold and Marten into orbit.
Which itself would give the station a boost every time it docked (unless they horribly cocked up the direction of docking relative to the station spin and orbit, which is unlikely).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: akronnick on 01 Oct 2012, 03:49
It's possible that the station is higher than LEO. Maybe it was constructed in situ from raw materials mined on the Moon and asteroids. If it was high enough, it would have less atmospheric drag to deal with, which could be done with some kind of ion drive. It could even be at Earth-Moon L1 and use the orbital resonance to keep it in place.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 01 Oct 2012, 04:38
Moving from high philosophical discussions on whether or not the cartoon AIs actually own their own "bodies" to slightly less elevated philosophy - "How many cat .gifs are necessary to placate the internet?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: LordVaughn on 01 Oct 2012, 04:40
At least with calculations
X*5(y) X being the threshold of cute kittens a person can take before becoming a writhing mess of temporary diabetes, y being the aww factor of each cat.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 01 Oct 2012, 05:07
It's possible that the station is higher than LEO. Maybe it was constructed in situ from raw materials mined on the Moon and asteroids. If it was high enough, it would have less atmospheric drag to deal with, which could be done with some kind of ion drive. It could even be at Earth-Moon L1 and use the orbital resonance to keep it in place.
Unless the windows were giant viewscreens, L1 doesn't match the depiction. Nor does GEO for that matter. And "a little bit higher than LEO" is smack in the middle of the VABs, a very bad place to put a tank full of squishies. Plus Spaceship apparently got them there in a time comparable to a transatlantic flight even with his "miss" of the station on the first orbit so a very great deal further than LEO seems ruled out by that too, unless Spaceship has a) magic rockets with super-high thrust and near-infinite specific impulse and b) inertial dampers to stop a splatting the cargo.
In which case, Station should be able to park wherever he damn well pleases because he wouldn't have to worry about petty things like "gravity" and "drag" at all.
But why would anyone think going to space was special then?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 01 Oct 2012, 05:30
Unless the windows were giant viewscreens, L1 doesn't match the depiction. Nor does GEO for that matter. And "a little bit higher than LEO" is smack in the middle of the VABs, a very bad place to put a tank full of squishies. Plus Spaceship apparently got them there in a time comparable to a transatlantic flight even with his "miss" of the station on the first orbit so a very great deal further than LEO seems ruled out by that too, unless Spaceship has a) magic rockets with super-high thrust and near-infinite specific impulse and b) inertial dampers to stop a splatting the cargo.
In which case, Station should be able to park wherever he damn well pleases because he wouldn't have to worry about petty things like "gravity" and "drag" at all.
But why would anyone think going to space was special then?

J E-C could well have developed magic rockets with super-high thrust and near-infinite specific impulse and intertial dampeners. After all, he did invent the robot hamster.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: SleeperCylon on 01 Oct 2012, 06:55
How do you spoil a video game?  19 out of 20 are 100% predictable from the first thirty minutes.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Oct 2012, 07:01
What would be the creepiest thing to think about with an AnthroPC?

The AI inside finds it relaxing to not be bombarded with billions of inputs at once.    1 (3.4%)
The AI inside is using some of its subroutines to count down to a certain date and time...    5 (17.2%)
In its spare time, it's not only running the SETI screensaver, it's scanning the internet for anime pron.    2 (6.9%)
They don't "own" their own chassis.    7 (24.1%)
They don't really NEED their own chassis, as they're actually an AI personality.    3 (10.3%)
Momo and Winslow are the exceptions; Pintsize is the RULE.    7 (24.1%)
Pintsize actually LIKES it when Faye throws him against the wall.    3 (10.3%)
Memes like Waffles and Spathe Ham annoy the crap out of them.    1 (3.4%)
Station is actually considering "downsizing" to an AnthroPC chassis.    0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 29
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 01 Oct 2012, 07:03
How do you spoil a video game?  19 out of 20 are 100% predictable from the first thirty minutes.
More specifically, since I don't know the game in question (or any other, for that matter), could someone tell me which of Marigold's tweets contained the spoiler and, briefly and either generically or hidden, how it gave away a plot point?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 01 Oct 2012, 07:33
So, does a massive amount of cat GIFs work to soothe an inflamed internet? I've never actually seen that in action, so I wouldn't know.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 01 Oct 2012, 07:41
So, does a massive amount of cat GIFs work to soothe an inflamed internet? I've never actually seen that in action, so I wouldn't know.

More seriously, I don't think you can prevent all of the Internet from being inflamed, just a fragment of it; what soothes one portion will irritate another.  It's like a genetic chimera, each of whose components are allergic to different stuff.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jmucchiello on 01 Oct 2012, 09:27
You wouldn't measure it in catgifs. You'd probably need move into kilocatgifs or megacatgifs.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Skewbrow on 01 Oct 2012, 09:55
FWIW feeding "cat gif" to google gives 439 million hits.

Edit: My bad pun - my duty to explain. Knowing that Jwhouk is a baseball fan I tried to paraphrase Yogi Berra's "ninety per cent of baseball is half mental". I will include into my will the request that my son will settle his old man's debt to the bad pun jar.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 01 Oct 2012, 10:30
I really like the way Marigold grabs her hair when she's freaking out. I'm fairly sure she's done it before but can't archive-fu one up.

EDIT: Found one! (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1527)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 01 Oct 2012, 11:19
How do you spoil a video game?  19 out of 20 are 100% predictable from the first thirty minutes.
Warning: Civ4 spoiler ahead.

Montezuma will declare war on everyone.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 01 Oct 2012, 12:21
Yeah, but at least he's pretty upfront about it bein' all transparently xenophobic right from the start and all. It's the backstabbers that turn on you five years into a research/trade agreement that really annoy me (I'm looking at you, Nobunga)…

(Still want the next Civ game to have the next SMAC game as a semi-standalone companion/expansion pack)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rockman on 01 Oct 2012, 12:31
I really like the way Marigold grabs her hair when she's freaking out. I'm fairly sure she's done it before but can't archive-fu one up.

I feel like I've seen it before too, but this (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2142) is all I could find off-hand. Same kinda "OH GOD CATASTROPHE" vibe though, which is pretty entertaining.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 01 Oct 2012, 15:22
I really like the way Marigold grabs her hair when she's freaking out. I'm fairly sure she's done it before but can't archive-fu one up.

EDIT: Found one! (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1527)

She apparently gets it from her dad. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2198)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 01 Oct 2012, 16:48
It's not the Red Chinese (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1993)!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tobimaro on 01 Oct 2012, 19:13
I checked the Marigold Twitter feed, and I cannot find the "offensive" post.  But, then again, I have not played Borderlands 2 (and I do not plan on playing it).  Plus, I do not care about spoilers in video games as I tend to use GameFAQS to help me out with some difficult games.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Asterus on 01 Oct 2012, 19:29
I checked the Marigold Twitter feed, and I cannot find the "offensive" post.  But, then again, I have not played Borderlands 2 (and I do not plan on playing it).  Plus, I do not care about spoilers in video games as I tend to use GameFAQS to help me out with some difficult games.
(click to show/hide)

(Modified to put the spoiler in spoiler tags - Method)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 01 Oct 2012, 22:00
It's okay, Marten, I totally thought that it was a love letter too. :oops:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Oct 2012, 22:07
I wonder what sort of box social Emily is throwing!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 01 Oct 2012, 22:09
I wonder what sort of box social Emily is throwing!

If Tai got a letter.....Sex Orgy?

*ducks thrown items*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 01 Oct 2012, 22:15
You are to report to the Department of Redundancy Department immediately. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 from that automated teller machine machine.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 01 Oct 2012, 22:16
Tomorrow: Turns out it really IS a love letter, and Tai just got invited to something unrelated.

It's not that far of a logical stretch, for somebody who's just received a letter covered in hearts from a somewhat passionate and slightly cuckoo lady they've known for a few weeks.
I was certainly thinking along those lines before scrolling down a bit. :P
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 01 Oct 2012, 22:20
You are to report to the Department of Redundancy Department immediately. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 from that automated teller machine machine.
Had you linked to the DORD page, I would have reached through the monitor and slapped you.  It is too late to go on a TVTropes archive binge  :meh:



Yeah....Marten was so thinking it was a love letter.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ElvisRevenge on 01 Oct 2012, 22:20
This is my second favorite QC strip ever. Wait. Maybe fourth or fifth. It's top five, no questions.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 01 Oct 2012, 22:30
Yeah....Marten was so thinking fearing it was a love letter.

I think that's slightly more accurate.  I mean, look at his face in panel four!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 01 Oct 2012, 22:59
Plot twist: there is a love letter inside the invitation.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 01 Oct 2012, 23:02
Seriously, I hope Tai will cut Marten some slack and won't mock him too much on this, his confusion is perfectly understandable.

I mean, seriously, who here hasn't been confused when reading the strip?

EDIT: Seriously, I tend to seriously overuse the word "seriously".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 01 Oct 2012, 23:08
So... I guess hope dies last? (or was that slowliest... is that even a word?)


Yeah....Marten was so thinking fearing it was a love letter.
I think that's slightly more accurate.  I mean, look at his face in panel four!
Confused me, too. But the more I look at it, the less it actually amounts to any specific emotion. More like a "blank face", really.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 01 Oct 2012, 23:13
Deep perplexity, maybe?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Boomslang on 01 Oct 2012, 23:41
I concur. It's pretty out of left field, if she was flirting with him any time before this I am deeply perplexed too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 02 Oct 2012, 00:01
Ah... that moment of self-doubting hope when in an ambiguous situation. Sweet torture, that is.

And if this is indeed foreshadowing Marten is setting himself up for "Space Lieutenant Situation Vol. II, The Banana Smoothie Letdown". °O
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjoker on 02 Oct 2012, 00:18
Y'know Tai, when you mention how you don't have a whole lot of close friends...this kinda thing might be part of the reason.
Title: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 02 Oct 2012, 00:19
Tee-hee!  "Envelope of Doom", indeed (title).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: VonKleist on 02 Oct 2012, 01:01
I seriously d´aawwwwed :D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 02 Oct 2012, 02:28
OMG! You are all PRECIOUS!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mothykins on 02 Oct 2012, 03:10
I wonder if Tai and Marten will ever be able to engage in friendly teasing without the forums getting their panties in a twist ("LOL Tai totes deserved that lololo"; "Tai is so mean to Marten she shouldn't pick on him like that RAGE"; etc.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 02 Oct 2012, 03:11
Is there another Emily in the strip that I don't know of? The envelope-giver isn't banana-smoothie-Emily. Envelope-giver isn't much taller than Marten, isn't wearing the same clothes as a couple of strips ago (not the best evidence, but...) and doesn't even look that much like Emily.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 02 Oct 2012, 03:37
She has her hair up in a ponytail today. Changing clothes is a thing that happens.
And did we ever see her feet? Maybe she was in heels before and switched to flats when she decided that having her ankles to explode wasn't actually part of the job.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 02 Oct 2012, 03:49
Jeph describes how he tightened up the dialogue for this. (http://jephjacques.com/post/32722345693/self-editing)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rockman on 02 Oct 2012, 03:50
I think I'm used to seeing her around people a lot shorter than her lately (Momo). But I know what you mean, when I read the strip on my phone's small screen this morning I had to look twice.
Title: Re: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Oct 2012, 04:23
Jeph describes how he tightened up the dialogue for this. (http://jephjacques.com/post/32722345693/self-editing)
Tai comes off much better in the real one than in the original script.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 02 Oct 2012, 04:31
I occurs to me that we don't know if Tai's invitation had hearts on as well (it's not clear if Tai can see the front of Marten's either).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 02 Oct 2012, 05:12
I occurs to me that we don't know if Tai's invitation had hearts on as well (it's not clear if Tai can see the front of Marten's either).
Because you don't see her invitation envelope, it is rather ambiguous. But Emily's character does seem the type to pretty up an invite with hearts and stars and whatnot.

Still, love Marten's reaction (many a dude has been in a similar situation before, I'll wager. Many with similar jumps to conclusion, and many of those with similar "crash and burn" results...)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Asterus on 02 Oct 2012, 06:17
Plot twist: there is a love letter inside the invitation.
Plot Twist: The invitation is to a place where she can give him a love letter
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 02 Oct 2012, 06:24
Plot twist: there is a love letter inside the invitation.
Plot Twist: The invitation is to a place where she can give him a love letter
Double Twist: The love letter is the second clue in the SMIF Annual Scavenger Hunt. Marten remains, however, clueless.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 02 Oct 2012, 07:29
Oh my gah Marten you are so effing cute!  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 02 Oct 2012, 07:31
Plot twist: there is a love letter inside the invitation.
Plot Twist: The invitation is to a place where she can give him a love letter
Double Twist: The love letter is the second clue in the SMIF Annual Scavenger Hunt. Marten remains, however, clueless.
I lol'd.
Also: A QC-spinoff is spawned, named "Questionable Content: Emilumbo".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Oct 2012, 07:50
I wonder what sort of box social Emily is throwing!

A coming-out party, in which she reveals she's actually a defective An-PC. 


Or maybe an alien. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 02 Oct 2012, 07:55
Tomorrow: Turns out it really IS a love letter, and Tai just got invited to something unrelated.

It's not that far of a logical stretch, for somebody who's just received a letter covered in hearts from a somewhat passionate and slightly cuckoo lady they've known for a few weeks.
I was certainly thinking along those lines before scrolling down a bit. :P

Exactly.  Emily is entirely zany and cuckoo or cocopuffs that I'd actually believe it.  The hearts and everything.  But we must remember, this is Emily and her....social interactions aren't exactly normal and if she's so excited to be having friends, well then...makes sense.

Marten.  Oh boy.  He looked so flattered/confused/dumbstruck.  If hitting on the Lt and contacting Padma says anything, the dude is going through a massive dry spell and at least wants to get laid.  I think he'd settle for someone just being into him again though.

I shudder at what kind of party Emily could be throwing though.
Title: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 02 Oct 2012, 08:02
A banana smoothie party, of course.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 02 Oct 2012, 08:05
I concur. It's pretty out of left field, if she was flirting with him any time before this I am deeply perplexed too.

This is, Emily.  I don't she think she's aware of the normal rules of flirting.  In fact, I don't think she's aware of normal period. :psyduck:

She's one strange lady.  Hearts could mean she wants to turn you into an Anthro PC....

But no.  Tai's invitation really is unrelated.  There is an invitation within an invitation in the seemingly quasi-love letter that contains a map to a robot facility.

Emily will undergo a robospecies change and finally become a toaster.  Only, she needs some toast for her toaster.  That's where Marten comes in.  And no, that's not sexual.  Or is it? :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kira on 02 Oct 2012, 09:36
I didn't know Emily had a Japanese last name. I figured she might be Chinese.

Oh well, in any case she could be a potential interest for Marten.
But not really, because I don't think he'd really see anything in her, unless there's something under that vapid exterior. Even Hannelore is a more viable prospect and that's a long shot considering her phobias.

Emily is the opposite of Hannelore in many ways though; she is almost childlike in her carefree naivety.. she doesn't afraid of anything either, but she seems too caught up in the little world inside her head to pay too much attention to other people around her. But who knows, maybe she isn't as shallow as she seems?

Perhaps Emily flirting with Marten could eventually trigger jealousy in Hannelore, who tries to decide rationally what Marten means to her, making her choose to confess something bold that she doesn't entirely mean....

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Oct 2012, 09:56
OK I don't get why everyone thinks Emily is so weird. Perhaps it's because I'm really weird, but I do a lot of the things that Emily does and don't think I'm that weird. Also, she has had sensible conversations too - her discussion with Momo might have started out rude but it developed into an interesting and fairly mature conversation about something that isn't off the wall.

If you go back a few strips to the banana smoothie mini-arc, you can see that Marten and Emily are very similar heights.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 02 Oct 2012, 09:58
Hello new hum ... new dwa ... new gno ... new individual!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 02 Oct 2012, 10:09
A banana smoothie party, of course.

Man, I hate going to those. Everyone's hammered by the end of the night.
Title: Re: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Oct 2012, 10:17
A banana smoothie party, of course.

Man, I hate going to those. Everyone's hammered by the end of the night.
Yeah,  I honestly don't see the a-peel.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Yarin on 02 Oct 2012, 10:21
its a work party
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Yarin on 02 Oct 2012, 10:26
Perhaps Emily flirting with Marten could eventually trigger jealousy in Hannelore, who tries to decide rationally what Marten means to her, making her choose to confess something bold that she doesn't entirely mean....
i like this idea
Title: Re: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DrBear on 02 Oct 2012, 10:34
A banana smoothie party, of course.

Man, I hate going to those. Everyone's hammered by the end of the night.
Yeah,  I honestly don't see the a-peel.

I expect a bunch of reactions to these posts.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 02 Oct 2012, 10:40
Perhaps Emily flirting with Marten could eventually trigger jealousy in Hannelore, who tries to decide rationally what Marten means to her, making her choose to confess something bold that she doesn't entirely mean....

I can't speak for Emily, but Hannelore probably wouldn't do that, if she's anything like me.  She's never had a romantic relationship, not because she can't get one (I think that there are a lot more people like Clinton than she realizes.), but because she doesn't want one.  There is a huge difference between looking at sexy firemen pictures and marrying a sexy fireman, not just socially, but mentally as well.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Thrudd on 02 Oct 2012, 10:43
A banana smoothie party, of course.

Sounds like good fun but I have to then ask a question ..... will there be warming of the bananas?   Also possibly other fruit like Strawberries ..... I like strawberries ... and maybe mango?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: StevenC on 02 Oct 2012, 10:56
Perhaps Emily flirting with Marten could eventually trigger jealousy in Hannelore, who tries to decide rationally what Marten means to her, making her choose to confess something bold that she doesn't entirely mean....

I can't speak for Emily, but Hannelore probably wouldn't do that, if she's anything like me.  She's never had a romantic relationship, not because she can't get one (I think that there are a lot more people like Clinton than she realizes.), but because she doesn't want one.  There is a huge difference between looking at sexy firemen pictures and marrying a sexy fireman, not just socially, but mentally as well.
I think it was once at least implied if not stated that she would be interested in a relationship (before/during the play date with Sven) but she is very well aware that her OCDs make it impossible for the time being.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 02 Oct 2012, 11:28
Sounds like good fun but I have to then ask a question ..... will there be warming of the bananas?   Also possibly other fruit like Strawberries ..... I like strawberries ... and maybe mango?
Mango, banana and tangerine,
Sugar and ackee and cocoa bean. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WzJ5YV62zs)

(sorry, I've had this song stuck in my head for several days)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 02 Oct 2012, 11:55
OK I don't get why everyone thinks Emily is so weird. Perhaps it's because I'm really weird, but I do a lot of the things that Emily does and don't think I'm that weird. Also, she has had sensible conversations too - her discussion with Momo might have started out rude but it developed into an interesting and fairly mature conversation about something that isn't off the wall.

That was also the conversation in which she revealed her ambition to become a toaster.  Then there's her Twitter feed.

About Hannelore: 1144 has her wishing Faye could start a relationship, partly because it would give Hanners some hope for herself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Asterus on 02 Oct 2012, 12:58
I wonder what sort of box social Emily is throwing!

A coming-out party, in which she reveals she's actually a defective An-PC. 


Or maybe an alien.
You know, as flippant as it sounds, that may actually be semi-plausible. She could be a prototype hollow-child!

On a side note:
she doesn't afraid of anything either,
"doesn't afraid of anything indeed" ^.^
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 02 Oct 2012, 13:09
OK I don't get why everyone thinks Emily is so weird. Perhaps it's because I'm really weird, but I do a lot of the things that Emily does and don't think I'm that weird. Also, she has had sensible conversations too - her discussion with Momo might have started out rude but it developed into an interesting and fairly mature conversation about something that isn't off the wall.

That was also the conversation in which she revealed her ambition to become a toaster.  Then there's her Twitter feed.

About Hannelore: 1144 has her wishing Faye could start a relationship, partly because it would give Hanners some hope for herself.

Very true.  And we must remember how far Hanners has come in her neuroses. Sleeplessness/Stress bags under her eyes are completely gone.  Opened up about her childhood to Marten and Marigold.  Joined a band.  Joined CoD as an employee.

I figure a relationship is kind of the end point or rather, the ultimate goal down the line for Hanners.  She may never completely reach it, but I don't think you can rule it out as something she'd like to try at some point.  I'm not meaning to ship in anyway, and I hope I'm not, but that's what makes it an interesting dynamic with her and Marten who have one of the closest general relationships of the entire comic if you think about it.  Who knows though?  I wouldn't mind it at all.  He'd make the most sense with Hanners as I'm not sure anyone else could handle her issues.

That's beside the point.  The point someone brought up was Emily being used to instigate some form of jealousy in Hanners she doesn't quite understand.  I don't see that in her nature.  Plus, she ships heavily in relationships in comic. 

I'm just curious about Emily and Hanners talking in general. 

And Emily is def weird.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 02 Oct 2012, 13:12
Oh, she's weird - but she isn't one dimensional and just weird. She isn't irrevocably weird.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 02 Oct 2012, 13:16
I'm looking forward to another party arc. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 02 Oct 2012, 13:32
I'm looking forward to another party arc.

I'd be curious if booze is involved and Emily got smashed would she role reversal and become all prim, proper, and normal or would the beast be unleashed? :-o
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: FunkyTuba on 02 Oct 2012, 13:45
yes... definitely looking forward to what Emily thinks is a party
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 02 Oct 2012, 13:57
The Rovers Wasn't That a Party" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLyr2yYdVk&noredirect=1) just went into my head with that for some reason.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 02 Oct 2012, 14:03
Emily isn't weird. Or if she is, she's the sort of weird that I tend to seek out in friends -- she simply thinks about different things than do most people.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 02 Oct 2012, 21:52
Plot Twist:  Padma turns up at the party
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 02 Oct 2012, 22:27
A lake house party sounds like fun. 

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: karlibell22 on 02 Oct 2012, 22:30
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Oct 2012, 22:33
Azuma. And it makes her...I don't know, someone who likes banana smoothies.
Plot Twist:  Padma turns up at the party
That'd make less sense than her showing up in space.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 02 Oct 2012, 22:34
Cristi is very good at stylized cursive!  I (and I think most people) are in Jeph's category, having forgotten it almost entirely.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 02 Oct 2012, 22:35
Azuma. And it makes her...I don't know, someone who likes banana smoothies.
Plot Twist:  Padma turns up at the party
That'd make less sense than her showing up in space.

Plot Twist:  Emily's parents' lake house is in space.  It's a space lake house!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 02 Oct 2012, 22:39
Plot Twist: It actually turns out to be a completely normal party with no lasting repercussions for anyone.
:P

Incidentally, this party sounds amazingly fun.

I like the cut of Marten's GY!BE... [/terriblepun]
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 02 Oct 2012, 22:40
Azuma. And it makes her...I don't know, someone who likes banana smoothies.
Plot Twist:  Padma turns up at the party
That'd make less sense than her showing up in space.

Plot Twist:  Emily's parents' lake house is in space.  It's a space lake house!
In space, no one can hear you splash.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 02 Oct 2012, 22:42
Plot twist: there is a love letter inside the invitation.
Plot Twist: The invitation is to a place where she can give him a love letter
Double Twist: The love letter is the second clue in the SMIF Annual Scavenger Hunt. Marten remains, however, clueless.

Will this involve fixing up motorcycles and a swimsuit contest? (http://manga.animea.net/ah-my-goddess-chapter-15-page-1.html)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Torlek on 02 Oct 2012, 23:08
So how long is the weekend at the lake house going to last in real time? Two weeks? A month? I've got money on two and a half weeks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 02 Oct 2012, 23:40
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?

Still this!? Still! :lol:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 02 Oct 2012, 23:45
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?

Ayame.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: 0kamisama on 02 Oct 2012, 23:53
I'm, for one, LOVING Emily!

She's odd, silly, sugar-coatedly sweet and that pony tail... squeee~ ♥
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: GroovyKinda on 03 Oct 2012, 00:00
Can't wait to see the lake house and all the partyers. Will we see some folks we haven't seen in a while, maybe in the background? Or cameos?
It's funny you did a strip with cursive. I did one a couple of weeks ago, and was pleasantly surprised at how much cursive I remembered: http://groovykinda.org/2012/09/03/cursive-foiled-again/
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Oct 2012, 00:04
I had a terrible thought.

If Marten invites all his friends, that would have to include Pintsize.

Introducing Emily and Pintsize would, as the old IBM 360 manuals said, "produce unpredictable results".

Does Marten have a lot of friends? We've only seen a few.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Oct 2012, 00:17
As the central character, inviting all his friends becomes a grand excuse to get the whole cast together at once...


I'm hoping Steve shows up.  And maybe the band can play their first gig...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Oct 2012, 00:36
Question for the people who dispute that Emily is weird:

Do you think that "weird" is something bad?

Emily is by all indications not bad. We haven't seen a mean bone in her body. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling her "weird" if I thought there was something wrong with being weird.

I'm comfortable calling her "weird".
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: TheoGB on 03 Oct 2012, 01:15
Err, I can't read the cursive stuff properly:

Quote
What: ????, swimming, ???? & other fun things!

Is that first one 'Games'? Looks more like a D at the start. The other one might be Croquet, I guess. Or Cocktails?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 03 Oct 2012, 01:16
I read it as "cookout" but I'm not sure it makes sense.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Oct 2012, 01:18
I guess cursive really is dieing...  Where's the line for reading this easily?  25?  30?  42? 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 03 Oct 2012, 01:19
...I thought it was "Azuma."

And looking, it is Azuma in the comic, fairly obviously.  See that little peak in the Z?  Although I will say that final A could easily be an E.

Besides, I think we all know if it were "Ay-" anything, it would be "Ayumu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayumu_Kasuga)."  (Yes I know its her first name shut up.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Aegir on 03 Oct 2012, 01:27
Looks like "Arjona" to me... I came here specifically to see a translation and it looks like there's no consensus yet.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: CrowFairy on 03 Oct 2012, 01:49
I didn't have trouble reading it, and I got "Games" and "cookout" for the words in question. Bearing that in mind, here's the whole invitation, for those who can't really read cursive. Also, I'm going with the Twitter last name, since I too had trouble reading it. It looked like "Ayune" to me. In the text below, I preserved capitalization, punctuation, and line breaks. :)

Quote
You are invited to a Party!

When: This Saturday night
to this Sunday morning!

Where: My parents' lake house!

What: Games, Swimming, a cookout
& other fun things!

I hope you are able to come!

Emily Azuma
:)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 03 Oct 2012, 01:54
We know it's Azuma (from Twitter, etc) - and since Jeph has acknowledged Azumanga Daioh as a major influence, using the name of its author is no big surprise.

Clearly some people are not familiar with the cursive style of small z that has a tail; I used it myself for a while.

I separated out the letters for you, and added a cursive z from somewhere for comparison:

(http://cassland.org/images/Azuma.jpg)   (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdP3fn4PNul6cDBVYS5OytwSTsjNncIamVuHw6-4UQEqGfPql3)

I read it as "cookout" but I'm not sure it makes sense.

It took it to mean barbecue.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pendrake on 03 Oct 2012, 02:07
For comic #2288...


1. @Is it cold in here?... To hell with "weird," I still have not found a satisfactory social definition of "normal." :?

2. I find it funny that quite a number of Jeph's girl-creations look so much better with ponytails than hair-down.  Evolution & refinement of art-styles, I guess.  Makes me wonder how the central QC-girls would look with ponytails?  (with appropriately longer hair too, of course)

3. My interpretation of Cristi's handwritten comic debut... :angel:

You are invited to a Party!

When: This Saturday night to Sunday morning!

Where: My parents' lake house!

What: Games, Swimming, a cookout & other fun things!

I hope you are able to come!

Emily Azuma :)


4. My misinterpretation of Cristi's handwritten comic debut... :evil:

You are invited to a Party!

When: This Saturday "might" to Sunday morning!

Where: My parent's lake house!

What: "Dames," Swimming, a "cookoret" & other fun things! ("dames" at a party would certainly be motivating incentive for me to go 8-) )

I hope you are able to come!

"Enuily Aryume" :)


5. Warning - While you were typing, your intended response became outdated & obsolete faster than an iPhone [X-number].  You may wish to revise your post before having to visit the Apple Store.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 03 Oct 2012, 03:18
Is cursive really *that* difficult to read?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: TheoGB on 03 Oct 2012, 04:03
I guess cursive really is dieing...  Where's the line for reading this easily?  25?  30?  42?

And spelling is definitely dying...

(I'm 39, and initially read it as "Dames" but otherwise it was no bother).

To anyone debating Emily's last name, remember there's https://twitter.com/EmilyAzuma

I'm 37 but 'cookout' isn't something we have in Britain so that would explain why I had no idea what it was. What is it? A US term for barbeque?  This is partly why I wasn't sure if that was 'games' either, since for all I knew there was some D____ word you guys over the pond are big fans of.  And it's by a lake so maybe 'dives'. ;)

And the idea that there's one sort of 'cursive' script is a bit odd. People have been having trouble reading others' handwriting for CENTURIES, guys! I guess Jeph's wife writes a capital G like a 'g' but higher up because otherwise that bears no resemblance to a capital G that I've ever seen. :D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 03 Oct 2012, 04:10
I guess cursive really is dieing...  Where's the line for reading this easily?  25?  30?  42?
Emily's handwriting is better than mine. I had no problems with reading it, except for the G at the beginning of Games, which I got from the context. I am bad at cursive capital letters, and I confess that I print the initial letter of capitalised words, and write the rest cursively. English is way easier to read than cursive Chinese. See below the word cǎo​shū ("grass script" or cursive writing) which is written once in standard Traditional Characters and once in cursive:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Cur_eg.svg/200px-Cur_eg.svg.png)

Is cursive really dying? Even if you type your homework, what do you use to answer essay-questions in exams? Block printing? I suppose there might be people who can print faster than they can write cursively, but it certainly is not true for me. Sheer speed is the main advantage of cursive I think, though that might explain why my handwriting is ugly...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 03 Oct 2012, 04:18
As the central character, inviting all his friends becomes a grand excuse to get the whole cast together at once...


I'm hoping Steve shows up.  And maybe the band can play their first gig...

Jeph is gonna have a mental breakdown if he has to include every single friend from Marten's background that theoretically could make it (aside from the folks on the Station and perhaps Padma). 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 03 Oct 2012, 04:20
I separated out the letters for you:

(http://cassland.org/images/Azuma.jpg)

Now that you did it that way......It looks like Ayuma, which if IIRC, means Foolish or Stupid Girl in Japanese.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 03 Oct 2012, 04:33
The last time I had to write cursive beyond my signature was when I took the GRE, where you have to copy a statement of understanding in cursive.  When I heard that instruction, I just looked at the lady handling my registration forms and said, "Um, I haven't written cursive in years...can't I just print it?"  But no, the requirement stood.  It took me almost five minutes to write four or five sentences. 

The last time I wrote cursive regularly was in 5th grade...so that SoU came out...barely readable.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: dr. nervioso on 03 Oct 2012, 04:40
Looking at you all trying to read cursive is funny. I can read cursive very well actually, and I write in it sometimes

But that's because cursive is just so much more fancy than regular print
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 03 Oct 2012, 04:40
I suppose there might be people who can print faster than they can write cursively, but it certainly is not true for me. Sheer speed is the main advantage of cursive I think, though that might explain why my handwriting is ugly...

I print much faster than I can use cursive legibly (for other people anyway).  That may have something to do with the years I spent as an army communicator where transmissions have to be written down completely, and MUST be printed.  Frankly though, Christi's writing isn't that hard to read - except for the fact that it's a light purple on a white background....
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tai Fanboi on 03 Oct 2012, 04:46
I'll be honest, she's quickly becoming one of my new favorites, but I've always enjoyed people who are random and unexpected, balances out my usual demeanor which is most like what's his face from Secret Bakery.  Large guy who had the crush on Padma (See even I can't remember who he is)   

As far as the whole cursive debate...  I read it no problem, but take that with a grain of salt for the simple fact that I can not write in print.  No I don't have any objection to print or think it's slower...  I just have been writing in script since I was in middle school, and after so long if I try to write in print the first 2 letters of the word will come out ok but the rest will be in the flowing arcs that is cursive. 

Only thing that seems to re-wire my brain is if I write in capital regular letters  :psyduck:  But I often have to type out a transcript of my reports and paperwork for co-workers because, as the age of them becomes younger, they do find it difficult to get certain words I use in script.  I find words with Z's like Hazard or beginning with them, like zircofluoride to be the most troublesome for them.

Script is first to go.  Next will be regular spelling.  One day the new written language will be text speak I fear  :cry:

2b or nt 2b, dats d Q
*shudder*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Throg on 03 Oct 2012, 04:54
How many more Azumanga Daioh references do you need here people? Now, if someone drives like a maniac in a beat-up car, and if Emily's parents have a big white Pyrennes dog, that'll take the cake. 

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 03 Oct 2012, 05:19
How many more Azumanga Daioh references do you need here people? Now, if someone drives like a maniac in a beat-up car, and if Emily's parents have a big white Pyrennes dog, that'll take the cake. 

But they do… Jeph and Cristi have a big ol' fluffball called Shebly. ;)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 03 Oct 2012, 05:22
I'm, for one, LOVING Emily!

She's odd, silly, sugar-coatedly sweet and that pony tail... squeee~ ♥

Don't forget being a cute Asian.  Gotta love cute Asians.

That aside, it also sounds like Emily's family is loaded. 

I still wonder if Emily gave hearts to everyones names.

I predict more instances of Marten thinking Emily is flirting with him at the party or that Marten finally meets a new love interest.  Big party. Lakehouse.  Booze.  Logical deduction.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 03 Oct 2012, 06:32
Friday will show a couple of cast members shamelessly flirting at the party with plently of drunk bubbles in evidence.

Cut to Monday, 2 panels of the other cast members looking at one or the other of the pair, obviously in rough shape from the weekend, the last panel will be a split panel focusing in on the pair who will utter one sentence in a joint speech bubble - "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Rest of the week is Yelling Bird and guest strips while Jeph scripts out the rest of the arc.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 03 Oct 2012, 06:45
It took a while, but I now officially like Emily. Huzzah!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: TheEvilDog on 03 Oct 2012, 06:50
Emily is still my favourite of the the three libterns, and this party should definitely be interesting. (And I imagine that Claire is going to have some sort of freakout)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 03 Oct 2012, 06:54
Friday will show a couple of cast members shamelessly flirting at the party with plently of drunk bubbles in evidence.

Cut to Monday, 2 panels of the other cast members looking at one or the other of the pair, obviously in rough shape from the weekend, the last panel will be a split panel focusing in on the pair who will utter one sentence in a joint speech bubble - "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Rest of the week is Yelling Bird and guest strips while Jeph scripts out the rest of the arc.

I just hope for Tai not trying to seduce Dora into bed.  That still needs to be put off while.

That said, I'm hoping for a post drunken haze strip where you have people all over the lake house.  Hanging from chandeliers, passed out over railings, etc.

I'd really love to see a case of mistaken happenings of Marten waking up in his boxers in bed with Emily solely to see what Emily would say in such a circumstance that'd likely make Marten scream like a little girl.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesium133 on 03 Oct 2012, 06:59

How many more Azumanga Daioh references do you need here people? Now, if someone drives like a maniac in a beat-up car, and if Emily's parents have a big white Pyrennes dog, that'll take the cake. 

But they do… Jeph and Cristi have a big ol' fluffball called Shebly. ;)
Wait... so you're saying Jeph and Cristi are Emily's parents?  :psyduck:

Friday will show a couple of cast members shamelessly flirting at the party with plently of drunk bubbles in evidence.

Cut to Monday, 2 panels of the other cast members looking at one or the other of the pair, obviously in rough shape from the weekend, the last panel will be a split panel focusing in on the pair who will utter one sentence in a joint speech bubble - "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Rest of the week is Yelling Bird and guest strips while Jeph scripts out the rest of the arc.

I just hope for Tai not trying to seduce Dora into bed.  That still needs to be put off while.

That said, I'm hoping for a post drunken haze strip where you have people all over the lake house.  Hanging from chandeliers, passed out over railings, etc.

I'd really love to see a case of mistaken happenings of Marten waking up in his boxers in bed with Emily solely to see what Emily would say in such a circumstance that'd likely make Marten scream like a little girl.

"Happy birthday, Grandma!"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Oct 2012, 08:49
Where's the line for reading this easily?  25?
Probably no more than this, since I had no issues and was amused to see so many confused by what it said.  That being said, I never write in cursive because I almost never write anything.  I've typed almost all of my assignments since high school.  It was weird, they taught us cursive in third grade, made us always use it third through fifth, insisting that it was because in middle school and high school you had to use it so you might as well get used to it.

First day of sixth grade, we got an assignment.  Someone asked the teacher "do we have to do this in cursive?" The teacher replied "either is fine, as long as I can read it."  Never wrote cursive for an assignment again.

Although I actually write my name in cursive for my signature*, as opposed to the random scribbles a lot of people do.  I figured I learned how to write in cursive, I might as well use it for something.

*unless it's one of those credit card machine readers that never read the pen properly, then I basically draw a line and hit ok.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Oct 2012, 09:21
"Cookout" is a typical American word for a barbecue.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 03 Oct 2012, 10:18
Oh, no... you've summoned them... those who'll tell you what a real barbecue is.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Hypster on 03 Oct 2012, 11:37
How many more Azumanga Daioh references do you need here people? Now, if someone drives like a maniac in a beat-up car, and if Emily's parents have a big white Pyrennes dog, that'll take the cake.
I don't know what kind of car Tai drives, but she does drive like a maniac (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1916).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 03 Oct 2012, 11:46
Oh, no... you've summoned them... those who'll tell you what a real barbecue is.
Well, in theory, only the Arawaks of the Taíno and Timucua tribes would know what a real real barbecue is. But they are extinct.
</smartass>
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ink slinger on 03 Oct 2012, 12:29
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?

She's Japanese-American, emphasis on the American (i.e., born and raised and, as a result, is only familiar with American culture).

EDIT: This is pure conjecture, of course, since we still know very little about Emily.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Oct 2012, 12:53
Oh, no... you've summoned them... those who'll tell you what a real barbecue is.
A real barbecue involves beer, friends, and a woolly mammoth for grilling.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 03 Oct 2012, 13:38
She's Japanese-American, emphasis on the American (i.e., born and raised and, as a result, is only familiar with American culture).
Many people have pointed out that, on the topic on her ignorance of anime, her being of Japanese descent is less relevant than the fact that she's a student in computer science, and therefore has had supposedly much exposition to nerd culture, of which anime is a significant part.

But from what we could see of her since she was introduced, obviously, standard categorizations don't work with Emily.

Quote
EDIT: This is pure conjecture, of course, since we still know very little about Emily.
Well, for one thing, with such a first name, it's unlikely she's Japan-born. Unless her parents are at least half as excentric as she is, which can't be ruled out.


At times, I wonder if Emily is not a catalogue of quirks Jeph couldn't include in Hanners character without breaking it (and its tragic aspects). She bears a tidbit of similarity to Hannelore as she was when she was first introduced.

By the way, I'm a programmer. I briefly tried to imagine what code written by Emily would look like. I gave up.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 03 Oct 2012, 14:30
How many more Azumanga Daioh references do you need here people?

So.....who is Kaorin in QC? Can't be Tai, she's kinda open about being a lesbian.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: celticgeek on 03 Oct 2012, 14:39

By the way, I'm a programmer. I briefly tried to imagine what code written by Emily would look like. I gave up.

Try here. (http://perl.plover.com/obfuscated/)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 03 Oct 2012, 14:47
Oh, no... you've summoned them... those who'll tell you what a real barbecue is.

http://www.the-whiteboard.com/autowbtg06.html and the following strips have something to tell you.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 03 Oct 2012, 15:38
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?

She's Japanese-American, emphasis on the American (i.e., born and raised and, as a result, is only familiar with American culture).

EDIT: This is pure conjecture, of course, since we still know very little about Emily.

It's supported by evidence from the script. Akima pointed out one Emily-ism that would be unthinkable in Chinese culture, from which we can extrapolate that someone from a Chinese-influenced culture wouldn't do it either.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Oct 2012, 16:33
What would be the creepiest thing to think about with an AnthroPC?

The AI inside finds it relaxing to not be bombarded with billions of inputs at once.    1 (1.7%)
The AI inside is using some of its subroutines to count down to a certain date and time...    11 (19%)
In its spare time, it's not only running the SETI screensaver, it's scanning the internet for anime pron.    5 (8.6%)
They don't "own" their own chassis.    9 (15.5%)
They don't really NEED their own chassis, as they're actually an AI personality.    7 (12.1%)
Momo and Winslow are the exceptions; Pintsize is the RULE.    15 (25.9%)
Pintsize actually LIKES it when Faye throws him against the wall.    5 (8.6%)
Memes like Waffles and Spathe Ham annoy the crap out of them.    2 (3.4%)
Station is actually considering "downsizing" to an AnthroPC chassis.    3 (5.2%)

Total Members Voted: 58
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Oct 2012, 17:36
Am I reading Emily's surname right as "Ayume?" Doesn't that make her Japanese? ...how does she NOT know what anime is?

She's Japanese-American, emphasis on the American (i.e., born and raised and, as a result, is only familiar with American culture).

EDIT: This is pure conjecture, of course, since we still know very little about Emily.

It's supported by evidence from the script. Akima pointed out one Emily-ism that would be unthinkable in Chinese culture, from which we can extrapolate that someone from a Chinese-influenced culture wouldn't do it either.
What is it? I can't seem to find that post.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 03 Oct 2012, 21:07
Probably this one (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28167.msg1094948/topicseen.html#msg1094948). At the time I posted that, Emily's surname had not been revealed, so I was referring to Chinese culture.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Yarin on 03 Oct 2012, 23:02
new comic is up id like to read between failures but im reading like 10 other comics at the moment and trying to start my own
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Oct 2012, 23:07
Probably this one (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28167.msg1094948/topicseen.html#msg1094948). At the time I posted that, Emily's surname had not been revealed, so I was referring to Chinese culture.
Interesting. Also, I had to look up jook-sing and FOB, but that's good, I like learning things.

Tai, come on now, you're already dating her.  You can stop trying to win her over.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Soulsynger on 03 Oct 2012, 23:17
@Comic:
...wow... for a second there I forgot Dora and Tai were dating now. I feel so emotionally detached for some reason. °O
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 03 Oct 2012, 23:39
I don't know what I'm laughing at more: the fact that Marten immediately knew what Tai was objecting to, or the expression on Tai's face suggesting that she actually thinks Dora might say no.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Torlek on 03 Oct 2012, 23:45
One date does not "dating" make. I wouldn't call them a couple yet, they're more like horny teenagers who are just barely holding off their instinct to hump like rabbits.

I do find it amusing that Jeph managed to crash Between Failures though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 03 Oct 2012, 23:48
On cursive - a lot of schools are no longer teaching it.

As for today's strip, I'm trying to figure out why Tai's annoying me. Oh, wait. I know what it is.

Tai, grow up. Seriously.
Title: Re: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 03 Oct 2012, 23:51
One date does not "dating" make. I wouldn't call them a couple yet
I never said they were a couple. They're definitely dating, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 04 Oct 2012, 00:01
...

...

OH, I get it. Tai's making it a second date. Ok, that's fair enough.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: calmcalamity on 04 Oct 2012, 00:41
I'm not usually one to care for fashion, or clothes in general, but I'm digging the vintage waitress type look Faye's rockin'. I wanna say that she's worn that before and I just didn't really notice, but I just can't remember.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 04 Oct 2012, 00:43
Am I the only one who laughed heartily and thought Tai was super fuckin' cute today? Because I did.

Also Dora is all over the fashion scene lately daaaaaannnnggg
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: snubnose on 04 Oct 2012, 01:08
Good poll today. :D

Actually, can we have multiple options of these ? :D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Toe on 04 Oct 2012, 01:09
Can I please have more sad-puppydog-eyes Tai? Please?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 04 Oct 2012, 01:20
I was expecting something like this. When Emily suggested Marten brings all his friends, I was wondering if he'd have the courtesy of letting Tai handle the case of Dora. Apparently he didn't think this through.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 04 Oct 2012, 01:28
And this sort of thing is why a lot of nerdy types look at human social rituals, get hopelessly confused and/or decide "fuck all that for a game of soldiers."
The result is the same, but we have to go through all these extra steps why?
Pfft.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: snubnose on 04 Oct 2012, 02:05
I would say that by [...]
My oh my, whats going on here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Oct 2012, 02:10
Tai can make puppy dog eyes?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 04 Oct 2012, 02:18
It seems unnecessary to criticise Marten.  He spoke to Faye, and then answered Dora's question.  It would have been stilted to the point of absurdity (and rude) to have turned away from Dora to Tai and say something like: "Do you want to handle this?"  The way it went was far more natural.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 04 Oct 2012, 02:54
Yeah, on second reading, it occured to me that, since he was answering Dora's question, it wasn't really a faux-pas.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: LordVaughn on 04 Oct 2012, 04:05
I didn't see it as Tai asking Dora on another date, more of "Wait, why am I the one not inviting the person I'm going out with to the party I'm going to be at?"
Even though she's right there, she's likely imagining a situation where Dora only finds out Tai is going at the last second, and is at the very least, frustrated that she didn't invite her. Given how often Tai actually had hung out with the rest of the group, its actually a bit more explainable. She's only been really at the occasions she's been a DJ at, save for the party where Marigold found out that Angus and Faye were going out. Looking from that point of view, it's almost understandable if she didn't pop up here or there, as if I am not mistaken, Marten was the main one to know that she didn't really have friends that she persistantly hung out with.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sorflakne on 04 Oct 2012, 04:18
I see Faye's going for the diner look today.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Oct 2012, 04:33
I didn't see what Marten did wrong, either, but assumed that I was clueless about some social norm (again).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 04 Oct 2012, 04:50
No faux pas on Marten's part; as said by others, he began to answer a question addressed to him by Dora.
His exasperated sigh in response to Tai's whatever-that-was (my niece would have told her daughter, "use your words") could be seen as a little pissy, but there are likely mitigating circumstances ("Yes, for the nth time," -- through clenched teeth --  "I'm OK with you dating Dora!").
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 04 Oct 2012, 05:18
Tai's grating personality rears itself again....

Marten, you know....IS Dora's friend, Tai.  And has been far longer.  It's only natural he'd answer a question of a friend asking about if she's also invited.  Especially considering Marten brought it up in the first place.
(http://bigbeatradio.com/static/emoticons/facepalm.gif)

I took Marten's sigh as a "oh for ***** sake! fine. guess i can't ask my friend these questions anymore."  She's definitely one of the overbearing types I avoid as friends.  Just as my own personal preference. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Oct 2012, 05:45
I found that really odd, and kind of out of character for Tai. We've seen a lot of character development with her, and this seems more like something she'd have done two years ago (real time, guesstimate).

On the cursive thing, I have never been taught cursive. I write "joined up" which is what I was taught to call it, but not always joined up. I'd like to be able to write in cursive, it looks lovely. My Korean student does write in beautiful cursive, which really surprised me as the previous Korean boy did not write very well at all.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 04 Oct 2012, 06:04
I didn't see what Marten did wrong, either, but assumed that I was clueless about some social norm (again).
Well, yesterday, about Marten stating he's got a lot of friends, you said this:
Does Marten have a lot of friends? We've only seen a few.
Which induced me to try and count them. But when Dora appeared in my list, I told myself "Ah, but Tai will certainly want to be the one to extend the invitation to Dora." It just seems a normal part of a relationship to me, even a budding one.

But as has been said, Marten was answering to Dora's question, so he wasn't really overstepping.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: iduguphergrave on 04 Oct 2012, 06:10
Tai could just be micromanaging. Remember, she's desperate for this relationship to work, so she might feel compelled to be in control of every aspect of it, including the invitation. She's also kind of out of her element in terms of trying for a long term relationship, so it's a little understandable that she's a little shaky on how to act.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 04 Oct 2012, 06:26
Tai could just be micromanaging. Remember, she's desperate for this relationship to work, so she might feel compelled to be in control of every aspect of it, including the invitation. She's also kind of out of her element in terms of trying for a long term relationship, so it's a little understandable that she's a little shaky on how to act.

That's a recipe for failure in most relationships, particularly Dora.  The sooner she realizes it, the better.  I vote on not, as it will be one of the ways tension will start to brew.  Just because you're desperate to be in a relationship doesn't give you law in being the numero uno in all things related to your love interest.  That's callous and annoying.  I have a feeling Tai will be far worse about being insecure/ridiculous about all things Dora than Dora was about the non-existant Faye issue. 

I keep trying to like Tai in some way...but she usually takes one step forward and 3 steps back.  Her maturity level is still clearly lacking.

I also don't get how, even if it wasn't a faux-pas, a very close friend can't do the inviting and what not to another close friend.  I think it'd be common courtesy not to be an ass to the person who the person you're now dating and never gave you much shit about openly flirting with said intimate person while they were dating.  Marten should be racking up freedom to do whatever the fuck he wants around Dora after trying to continuously appease Tai's sensibilities. 

She really needs to stop being so self-absorbed in a relationship that hasn't even gotten off the ground yet in my opinion.  It's still parked at the gate and hasn't even begun refueling yet.


Sorry for the rant...I've had "supposed" friends like Tai before and they just rub me the wrong way.  Just don't jive with those types of folks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Oct 2012, 06:27
Let's see:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Oct 2012, 06:31
Bear with me here, train of thought coming up.

1. I was surprised people thought Pintsize would be invited. I think this is because he is not really socially able to interact with strangers in an appropriate manner. I was also surprised that Winslow was suggested, even though he can. Conclusion: I did not consider anthroPCs to count as Marten's friends.

2. I was not surprised Momo is included in the list. Momo is also an anthroPC, but she looks more human.

3. Is Momo more socially adept now than she was in her old chassis? I feel as though the dynamic has shifted since she changed body - for a start, she now has a job and friends of her own, independent of Marigold.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Oct 2012, 06:32
Actually, May, I was just thinking who Marten would call a "friend". I don't know if he'd actually invite Momo or Winslow.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 04 Oct 2012, 06:38
Sure, I was just following a thought chain that ended up with the main point: is Momo treated more like a human now that she's in a new chassis?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Oct 2012, 06:46
She is definitely trying to "act" more human. Perhaps she's QC's Bicentennial Girl?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 04 Oct 2012, 06:47
Perhaps Momo, being a co-worker at the library, got her own invitation.
Either way, one would hope Emily would not follow her around, pushing her (belly) button so the party guests could watch her hair change color.
Unless Emily is an agent of the Old Ones and will cast them all into an eldritch pit of ancient horror.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 04 Oct 2012, 06:55
Perhaps Momo, being a co-worker at the library, got her own invitation.
And it's then quite probable that she'll be the one extending the invitation to Marigold.

By the way, jwhouk, you put Jimbo twice in your list. Otherwise, well, I'm not sure about Elliot, they are acquainted but they haven't interacted much, so I'm not sure Marten would actually call him a friend by now.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Black Sword on 04 Oct 2012, 07:07
Lately, I feel this urge to roll up a newspaper and smack Tai with it every other appearance. There's cute puppy love and annoying puppy love, and thus far, she's been strictly in the latter category.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 04 Oct 2012, 07:11
I'm digging Faye's outfit as well.  I guess Jeph got tired of drawing her in the Bear Monster shirt, which she's been wearing a lot the past while.

For some reason the idea has come to mind that Steve and Emily wil know each other, and their connection is not a good one.  After all we haven't seen him in a while, and he has some strange connections as a result of his secret agent gig.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 04 Oct 2012, 07:14
Tortura's, um ... (no, wait, Tortura's Russian)  ... stepsister. Yeah.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 04 Oct 2012, 07:34
Bear with me here, train of thought coming up.

1. I was surprised people thought Pintsize would be invited. I think this is because he is not really socially able to interact with strangers in an appropriate manner. I was also surprised that Winslow was suggested, even though he can. Conclusion: I did not consider anthroPCs to count as Marten's friends.

2. I was not surprised Momo is included in the list. Momo is also an anthroPC, but she looks more human.

3. Is Momo more socially adept now than she was in her old chassis? I feel as though the dynamic has shifted since she changed body - for a start, she now has a job and friends of her own, independent of Marigold.

Hell, if not for the fact we knew Momo used to be a chibi japanese style anime anthroPC, I would have figured she learned toward being a humanistic cyborg that was more human than robot.  I think the dynamic has changed.  Heck, she has even changed and seems to be adopting more humanlike interactions.  In a sense, she's growing.  Which is interesting considering we have the Pintsize example of pure robotic asshole nature that is unchanging and Winslow.....who, we've actually not seen in quite some time.  And who, I might add, in his human body was definitely creepy while Momo's change seems completely natural.

I think Momo is working her way to being a regular of the group and will gradually be considered more of a regular friend type than just Marigold's anthroPC.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Oct 2012, 07:37
Marten has explicitly called Pintsize a "friend".

Momo always wanted to be treated with respect. The new chassis was a logical step, and opens new doors for her.

The real question is whether Emily has cleared this plan with her parents.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: crowbar563 on 04 Oct 2012, 08:06
Unless the windows were giant viewscreens, L1 doesn't match the depiction. Nor does GEO for that matter. And "a little bit higher than LEO" is smack in the middle of the VABs, a very bad place to put a tank full of squishies. Plus Spaceship apparently got them there in a time comparable to a transatlantic flight even with his "miss" of the station on the first orbit so a very great deal further than LEO seems ruled out by that too, unless Spaceship has a) magic rockets with super-high thrust and near-infinite specific impulse and b) inertial dampers to stop a splatting the cargo.
In which case, Station should be able to park wherever he damn well pleases because he wouldn't have to worry about petty things like "gravity" and "drag" at all.
But why would anyone think going to space was special then?

J E-C could well have developed magic rockets with super-high thrust and near-infinite specific impulse and intertial dampeners. After all, he did invent the robot hamster.


All space issues can be solved with a high enough thrust to weight ratio. The logistics of keeping a station in orbit are quite trivial compared to getting into orbit. Also, I don't think Jeph was as concerned as other people were with matching angular velocity in the docking procedure, or making sure the visual field of earth was the correct proportion, or drawing realistic clouds.
Besides, it is quite feasible to dock and with and keep a station in orbit seeing as we have been doing it going back to the 70s.

 What concerned me the most was the single-stage ground to LEO craft. I personally would use an air-breathing first stage (if we eve get scramjets to work reliably) and a rocket propelled second stage.

On another note: Is Faye looking awesome today (Thursday) or what?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 04 Oct 2012, 08:42
Faye does look good today.

But what's up with Dora.  Her attire is all over the place last several strips. 

I will note, however, I missed her look when he grew her hair out and it had blonde tips.  Always wanted to see what she'd look like as a full blonde, just for curiosity's sake as I LOVE black haired ladies.  Love them.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Oct 2012, 08:46
Faye does look pretty cool, but I never understood the shirts like the one Dora's wearing, it looks like someone took a t-shirt and cut an arbitrary amount from the right shoulder. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Oct 2012, 08:50
Tai would have been better off with a "Yes, please Dora, can you come to the party?" chimed in with Marten's answer, than "AAAAAHHHH...."

Faye's outfit;  Breast pockets.  That is all. 

Dora's;  my younger daughter wore severely oversized t-shirts with the collars (and sleeves, and bits of the sides) cut out when she exercised.  The result was often similar. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Oct 2012, 09:47
Yeah, but at least that's symmetrical. What I don't get is when people do it on just one side.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: TinPenguin on 04 Oct 2012, 09:55
That's just the point! It's asymmetrical! It shows you are kooky and interesting!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: NotAwesomeAnymore on 04 Oct 2012, 10:30
Hey, what's up with collars and ties and random frills and buttons? Clothes are wack.

Also, I was kinda weirded out by the Tai thing. It seemed so immature and unnecessary and not particularly cute. Perhaps I'm too irritable today.  :?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mothykins on 04 Oct 2012, 12:01
Yeah, but at least that's symmetrical. What I don't get is when people do it on just one side.

Iunno, I think it's a cool style of shirt. Guess it's just a case of "different strokes for different folks"?

On Tai: Hrm. Now, I'm usually among the first to white-knight for her, but today's strip came across as a bit grating, even to me. The last panel didn't feel very natural, either, for some reason.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jmucchiello on 04 Oct 2012, 12:16
I'm hoping Pizza Girl delivers some pies to the party. It would explain why we haven't seen her in a while: she's move up by some lake.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: RyanW1019 on 04 Oct 2012, 12:31
I really like the way Marigold grabs her hair when she's freaking out. I'm fairly sure she's done it before but can't archive-fu one up.

EDIT: Found one! (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1527)

Found another one! http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1460
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rockman on 04 Oct 2012, 12:31
Tai's behavior isn't bugging me like it seems to be for others.  Just personal taste I guess.  :-D Also it cracks me up when she talks like she does in the last panel, reminds me of how she acts in panel 3 in this strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1400).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 04 Oct 2012, 12:34
 
I will note, however, I missed her look when he grew her hair out and it had blonde tips roots.
FYP.

Sorry, I'm apparently having an anal-retentive day.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: crowbar563 on 04 Oct 2012, 12:45
I guess I am just used to ladies taking scissors to their shirts. It is most notable in the student sections during football games. It's most notable when they slice open the sides and stand right in front of you. Its like "I don't want to stare, but you are putting everything right in front of my face. This is getting awkward."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Oct 2012, 12:59
Are you sure that "anal-retentive" has a hyphen?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Oct 2012, 13:23
Faye does look pretty cool, but I never understood the shirts like the one Dora's wearing, it looks like someone took a t-shirt and cut an arbitrary amount from the right shoulder. Am I missing something?

80's chic is in, don'tcha know?

I took Marten's sigh as a "oh for ***** sake! fine. guess i can't ask my friend these questions anymore."  She's definitely one of the overbearing types I avoid as friends.  Just as my own personal preference.

She's showing to be the dominant of the relationship with Dora? Never figured Dora to be the submissive type.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: PthariensFlame on 04 Oct 2012, 13:27
Are you sure that "anal-retentive" has a hyphen?


It can but it doesn't have to. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anal-retentive?s=t)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Renewman on 04 Oct 2012, 14:22
Oh you guys already know I'm going to voice my displeasure over this strip. Tai has officially crossed the border from "slightly annoying" into full blown "irritating." Getting so insecure and possessive as to stop Marten mid-conversation to ask the same question he just asked? I don't even.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 04 Oct 2012, 14:46
I think the strip and Tai's tugging at Martin so she could pass the invitation to Dora was a hoot. Tai doesn't irritate me. She is what she is. She is what Jeph makes her. She's a character, with a personality. Maybe out of my ignorance of the generation, I think she's believable. I like her, warts and all.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 04 Oct 2012, 15:02
I guess I am just used to ladies taking scissors to their shirts. It is most notable in the student sections during football games. It's most notable when they slice open the sides and stand right in front of you. Its like "I don't want to stare, but you are putting everything right in front of my face. This is getting awkward."

Oh I don't have a problem with that particular style.  My college days are only a few months ago and yes...ladies take the scissors to their shirts quite often and its incredibly distracting and find it completely ridiculous when they catch you looking and give you dirty looks.  I mean.....c'mon, admit it.  You did that partly to ventilate, mostly to flash the flesh.


What I dislike about Tai's continued "puppy love" as some of you seem to find it and find it cute....it's bordering on obsession.  Now, she's always been obsessed over Dora but it was manageable because she was dating Marten.  Now that she is kinda dating Dora, it's melodramatic and overdone.

Then again....I had a...quasi-relationship with a girl my sophomore year of college.  Ok, probably more friends with benefits nature.  Other than not being a butch lesbian, she was pretty much time.  Over the top, obsessive, overbearing, and controlling.  Needless to say that didn't last long, however we were both on the same residential life staff.  My god that was the most frustrating several months of my college career.  That's pretty much why Tai completely turns me off.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 04 Oct 2012, 16:15
Sure, I was just following a thought chain that ended up with the main point: is Momo treated more like a human now that she's in a new chassis?
Pretty definitely, I think. In her old chassis Marigold, and Faye even more so, treated her like a doll or toy. Remember the way Faye used to peer up her skirt (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1624), or toss her around (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1657), for example? It makes Emily's belly-button pushing (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2250) look pretty tame.

As for Tai in 2289, I think Jeph went for the funny more than the character development here, and that's fine. Marten's expression in the third panel is brilliantly done.

I don't understand all the bibble-babble about Dora's top. It's just an ordinary wide-necked top of the sort that's intended to be worn off the shoulder, or at least always slips that way (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=off+the+shoulder+tops&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dBZuUIWFIOyiiAew24GwAg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1206&bih=1050). No scissors are required. Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing? Hey, it's been a while since I posted a fashion-rant...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 04 Oct 2012, 16:22
THE LAST COMIC CERTAINLY WAS SERIOUS BUSINESS.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Oct 2012, 16:32
So Dora is assbutt and Marten is buttass. I like it!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 04 Oct 2012, 16:37
Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing? Hey, it's been a while since I posted a fashion-rant...

Sometimes I realize that if I had to file a missing persons report on my wife I wouldn't be able to tell the authorities what she was wearing when she disappeared.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 04 Oct 2012, 17:13
Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing? Hey, it's been a while since I posted a fashion-rant...

Sometimes I realize that if I had to file a missing persons report on my wife I wouldn't be able to tell the authorities what she was wearing when she disappeared.

Not really the same thing, but that reminds me of the joke in the musical Guys and Dolls where Sky offers a wager that challenges Nathan to tell him the colour of the tie he is wearing. A wager he is forced to refuse when he can't recall with any certainty.

But yes, I've been to fun runs with my partner where, when trying to meet up afterwards, I spend a comical minute or two straining to recall what she was wearing. Sheesh.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Oct 2012, 17:14
I don't understand all the bibble-babble about Dora's top. It's just an ordinary wide-necked top of the sort that's intended to be worn off the shoulder, or at least always slips that way (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=off+the+shoulder+tops&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dBZuUIWFIOyiiAew24GwAg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1206&bih=1050). No scissors are required. Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing? Hey, it's been a while since I posted a fashion-rant...
I've seen them before, I just don't see how it's comfortable.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Near Lurker on 04 Oct 2012, 18:50
Let's see:
  • Steve
  • Faye
  • Dora
  • Sven
  • Amir
  • Jimbo (if he's sober)
  • Hannelore
  • Angus
  • Cosette
  • Elliot
  • Penelope
  • Will
  • Marigold
  • Emily (obviously)
  • Gabby (getting there)
  • Claire (who's probably already going to be there)
  • Clinton (though that's questionable)
  • Momo
  • Winslow
  • Pintsize (No, he doesn't want him to burn Emily's parents place down)

Hmm... Jimbo and Winslow probably wouldn't fit in.  I don't think Marten ever really thinks of Amir outside Deathmřle.  I almost forgot who Eliot was.  Penelope's probably not going, or Wil, just by virtue of being too many degrees from the principals.  I don't think Marten would think to invite Sven, and I don't think Dora would want to.  Angus and Cosette are probably invited by default, though.

So yeah, I'm going to say in addition to Dora and Faye, Angus, Steve, Cosette, Hannelore, Marigold, Momo, and of course, Emily, Gabby, Claire, Marten, and Tai.  Probably not Clinton, only since the only one who'd invite him would be Claire, and she... wouldn't.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Oct 2012, 18:55
Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing?

I rather not elaborate. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: dr. nervioso on 04 Oct 2012, 20:39
So I have noticed something about the Dora/Tai thing:

Tai is proving to be the more - controlling I think is the word I am looking for- and given Dora's past experience with Marten, Dora has control issues.
Now Dora has been through therapy, so she could be better equipped than she was before, but this hasn't been tested yet.
Does Dora or Tai have what it takes to step down to ensure the security of their relationship? With Marten, it came with small cracks (The haircut incident). But considering the foundation it was based on (Marten and Faye's romantic interest in each other), that could have been a separate case all together

But still, I can see plenty of things that could go wrong:
The aforementioned control issues. Dora seems fine now, but perhaps she hasn't considered the long term with Tai.
Tai's history with polyamory. Maybe she decides monogamy isn't for her and has to make a choice between that and Dora
Or maybe the awkwardness between Tai and Marten reaches a critical high. It would be hard working with someone when you've been with the same lady.

Or maybe this is all overanalysis and I am just talking out of my ass right now. Anything is possible!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 04 Oct 2012, 21:56
Meh

I just interpreted that as Tai wanting to be the one to invite Dora out for a second date.

Funny though, she looks real 'Puppy Dog' in the third panel.



Oh, and why is Faye dressing like Emma Peel??
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Oct 2012, 23:13
Why not? 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Vurogj on 04 Oct 2012, 23:19
So Dora is assbutt and Marten is buttass. I like it!
I thought Marten was spookypants?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sidhekin on 04 Oct 2012, 23:29
I'm pretty sure that's Dora.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: muffin_of_chaos on 04 Oct 2012, 23:39
Tai seems sort of clingy with Dora.  Does not bode well.
(Would bode well if they were in the same place.  A certain level of clinginess can add to the intimacy.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ponderch3rry on 04 Oct 2012, 23:43
I don't understand all the bibble-babble about Dora's top. It's just an ordinary wide-necked top of the sort that's intended to be worn off the shoulder, or at least always slips that way (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=off+the+shoulder+tops&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dBZuUIWFIOyiiAew24GwAg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1206&bih=1050). No scissors are required. Don't you guys pay any attention to what girls are wearing? Hey, it's been a while since I posted a fashion-rant...
I've seen them before, I just don't see how it's comfortable.

I'd equate the feeling to wearing a tank-top or boob-tube. Nice and breezy on your shoulders on a warm day ^_^
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 05 Oct 2012, 00:16
Why not?

Indeed

*Doffs Bowler hat*
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 05 Oct 2012, 00:25
*Doffs Bowler hat*
Can we borrow it? - a colleague became a British citizen yesterday, and overnight his desk has been tastefully decorated with all the red, white and blue paraphernalia left over from our summer jubilee celebrations; and an England rugby shirt to replace his NZ one.  But we're missing a bowler.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 05 Oct 2012, 01:43
Smooth reflexes there, Faye. It can't be easy to just backhand someone like that.

I propose that the sheer density of cat .gifs Marigold has subjected herself to has contributed to her current butt status.
We must investigate this phenomenon. For Science!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 05 Oct 2012, 01:53
Smooth reflexes there, Faye. It can't be easy to just backhand someone like that.
Faye reads gossip mags?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 02:23
Man, you can't blame Angus for looking, Faye, Marigold apparently has what I hear is called a "badonkadonk".

THE LAST COMIC CERTAINLY WAS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Well I mean naturally we have to analyze how each movement Tai makes and any jokes she is involved in are reflective of her massive deficiencies as a person and vast personality flaws. (Please note sarcasm.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Toe on 05 Oct 2012, 02:24
Faye apparently went directly home and burned that crazy outfit she was wearing earlier and changed into something less silly.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 05 Oct 2012, 03:30
Smooth reflexes there, Faye. It can't be easy to just backhand someone like that.
Faye reads gossip mags?  :psyduck:


...I didn't even notice the magazine until it got mentioned in this post.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 05 Oct 2012, 03:39
Smooth reflexes there, Faye. It can't be easy to just backhand someone like that.
Faye reads gossip mags?  :psyduck:
No, she reads Gossip Mag, an ironic post-structural review of other gossipy organs. Its meta gossip.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 05 Oct 2012, 03:57
Faye reads gossip mags?  :psyduck:

I wondered about that too.

I think it's interesting Marigold is dressed like that. Maybe it's just warm and they're pyjamas or comfy clothes but usually we only see her in t-shirts and comfy trousers.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 05 Oct 2012, 03:59
Probably why Angus reacted the way he did.

Don't think Faye has anything to worry about with Marigold, though, really.

Edit: Holy cow... I'm eternal!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Border Reiver on 05 Oct 2012, 04:30
Faye you have forgotten - Angus is allowed to look at other items on the menu, he's just not allowed to order.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tai Fanboi on 05 Oct 2012, 04:40
I dunno when it happened but whenever Marigold appears in a strip now I picture her as Kat Dennings.  But after seeing how she usually dressed and this outfit being such a departure from the norm, can't tell if the stare is because of the out of the norm look or because "hey look booty shorts"...  But I'm hedging my bets on both

(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk277/Teutonic_Knight_Funnay/imagesqtbnANd9GcRuj4tzjviad4TZFlpOr_zpsf1f2c3d7.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Renewman on 05 Oct 2012, 04:50
Ha! Looks like Faye now realizes she isn't the only one in the circle of friends who actually has a big ass. While Angus wasn't smart enough to hide the fact that he looked (like all of us guys do from time to time) Faye is still in the wrong for reprimanding for a little peek. Nothing wrong with window shopping. Of course with her past issues with trust and insecurity, I can't blame her for getting upset over it. I do want to see Marigold go out with someone sooner or later though. I don't really think it's going to work out with homeboy from the space station.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: iduguphergrave on 05 Oct 2012, 05:09
Say it with me now...

Dat. ASS.

 :-o
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 05 Oct 2012, 05:17
DAT


ASS!

 :psyduck:  :psyduck:  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 05 Oct 2012, 05:28
Angus, Angus.

Women always know when you're looking at other women.  And you were doing it...with your arm wrapped around your honey.  Poor form, man, poor form!

Love his expression.  "When'd she get that ass!? :-o"

A true level of surprise.  Though, he is dating Faye.  The queen of booties in this comic so far. 

Angus gonna have some to do some work to make up for that long stare.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Sylentknight on 05 Oct 2012, 05:51
HAHAHA!  That made my day. Go Marigold go!

And Angus...Rule One. Never move the head, only the eyes. This includes when you have the advantage of sunglasses.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Skaltura on 05 Oct 2012, 05:58
Danger, Butts disease is flaring up again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VySkRVYhI
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 05 Oct 2012, 06:09
(Blocked in the UK)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: eschatonic on 05 Oct 2012, 06:38
Normalising domestic violence, yay.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 06:42
boob-tube
That's an article of clothing? I thought "boob-tube" meant television.
No, she reads Gossip Mag, an ironic post-structural review of other gossipy organs. Its meta gossip.
It's actually Gossip Rag.

Also, Eschatonic, come on.  No need to go there.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: eschatonic on 05 Oct 2012, 07:13
Also, Eschatonic, come on.  No need to go there.

Not sure what you mean by this. Does pointing it out make you uncomfortable?

Let's imagine for a second that Steve had walked past, Faye had looked, and Angus had hit her in response. That cool with you?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Oct 2012, 07:19
IT'S A COMIC STRIP.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Oct 2012, 07:20
Now, onto more interesting things:

Emily's Hosting a Par-tay! And your expectations?

Absolutely none. This is going to be epic, regardless.    17 (29.3%)
We find out Emily's secret origin!    2 (3.4%)
Claire and Clinton argue through the whole thing. Major bummer.    0 (0%)
Gabrielle invites her brother, Dale, to the party (after prying him away from WoW).    8 (13.8%)
Dora, Tai, Faye, Angus, a bottle of whiskey - and the wrong people end up in the wrong bed!    0 (0%)
Dora, Tai, Faye, Angus, Marigold, Hannelore, Marten, Sven... yeah, you get the idea.    6 (10.3%)
Cast reunion time! Except we find out what REALLY happened to Ellen and Sara.    9 (15.5%)
Steve brings Cosette, who promptly BURNS THE PLACE DOWN.    10 (17.2%)
Emily's parents are the software writers for AnthroPC's - and Hanner's dad's #1 competition!    1 (1.7%)
The lake house is actually Rhode Island.    3 (5.2%)
Spathe Ham and Waffles!    0 (0%)
I ain't leavin' 'til they throw me out!    2 (3.4%)

Total Members Voted: 58
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 05 Oct 2012, 07:25
Also, Eschatonic, come on.  No need to go there.

Not sure what you mean by this. Does pointing it out make you uncomfortable?

Let's imagine for a second that Steve had walked past, Faye had looked, and Angus had hit her in response. That cool with you?

Clearly, you need to be reading more conservative and thusly, boring comics if this hurts your sensibilities.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Akima on 05 Oct 2012, 07:40
(Blocked in the UK)
In Australia too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: eschatonic on 05 Oct 2012, 08:29
Clearly, you need to be reading more conservative and thusly, boring comics if this hurts your sensibilities.

Actually, I'd rather read QC thanks. It's a good comic.

Honestly though I'd prefer it if we could have a mature discussion about why Faye thinks it's okay to hit Angus (or, more interestingly, why no-one appears to think that this is noteworthy behaviour). I mean seriously, try my thought experiment and tell me that wouldn't make you uncomfortable to see in the comic.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 05 Oct 2012, 08:35
I Believe We've Had That Discussion Already
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: TheEvilDog on 05 Oct 2012, 08:38
I'm calling it now. Shenanigans will happen at the party! Awkwardness and recriminations aplenty! And someone will be upset!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Barmymoo on 05 Oct 2012, 09:04
Are you sure that "anal-retentive" has a hyphen?

It does when it's acting as an adjective for "day". At least, that's what I always believed and teach - when a compound noun made up of an adjective and a noun becomes itself an adjective, you hyphenate. That way you avoid the fine tooth-comb issue.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Vurogj on 05 Oct 2012, 09:07
So is it just the art, or does Marbear's stance change significantly as she walks past the pair? She's kinda slouched in the first panel, but suddenly her spine appears concave in #2. Or am I falling into overanalysis mode?

Warning - while you were typing a new reply about hyphens has been posted. You may wish to add a hyphen of your own to be topical.

*sigh* Fine, over-analysis.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Schmorgluck on 05 Oct 2012, 10:00
She already stated that she hates the idea (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1880) because of her despising the Beautiful All Along (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautifulAllAlong) trope (the TVTrope page conveniently provides the link to the aforelinked comic), but seriously, Marigold could use some kind of makeover. If it's not aimed at mainstream "beauty", and involves clothes she'd actually enjoy wearing (which goes a long way for self-confidence – and I'd suggest it keeps some nerdy accessory or t-shirt, because it's part of her core personality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NerdsAreSexy)), she's got the potential to be her own kind of cute.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 05 Oct 2012, 10:16
I wonder if Marigold still talks to that dude she almost nailed in space!
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Toe on 05 Oct 2012, 10:26
seriously, Marigold could use some kind of makeover. If it's not aimed at mainstream "beauty", and involves clothes she'd actually enjoy wearing

Bustin' out a corset (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1471) more often would be a good start...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Hybredmoon on 05 Oct 2012, 10:30
Marigold fanservice. God does answer prayers.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Oct 2012, 10:57
Clearly, you need to be reading more conservative and thusly, boring comics if this hurts your sensibilities.

Actually, I'd rather read QC thanks. It's a good comic.

Honestly though I'd prefer it if we could have a mature discussion about why Faye thinks it's okay to hit Angus (or, more interestingly, why no-one appears to think that this is noteworthy behaviour). I mean seriously, try my thought experiment and tell me that wouldn't make you uncomfortable to see in the comic.

Welcome, new person!

You had no way of knowing this, and it's not a rules thing, but that issue has become an Oh No Not That Again discussion. The points that come up every time, in case you were wondering, are It's Just A Cartoon, It's Just A Smack, But She Left A Bruise On Marten, But He Never Asked Her To Stop, But He Shouldn't Have To, I Smack My Friends And Vice Versa, and several others I don't have the energy to recall.

Perspective: Faye is not a normative character and Jeph has said he would not like her in real life.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 05 Oct 2012, 10:58
Also, Eschatonic, come on.  No need to go there.

Not sure what you mean by this. Does pointing it out make you uncomfortable?

Let's imagine for a second that Steve had walked past, Faye had looked, and Angus had hit her in response. That cool with you?

Clearly, you need to be reading more conservative and thusly, boring comics if this hurts your sensibilities.

That's not really addressing their question, though, is it? They, essentially, asked: would you be fine--enjoying a mostly light-hearted and humour-based comic where-in a male character back-handed his girlfriend seemingly for the sake of comedy? Well socially-ingrained gender double-standards don't make things interesting or controversial, they make things lame and cliche. An edgy, non-conservative, comic, would be one in which this event happens--and then depicts how accept this social norm is real, painful, and unfair--(I appreciate, we don't know how this event will be dealt with). As it stands, the presence of female-on-male violence is pretty socially and artistically conservative--though, I understand you may be using the word 'conservative' as to mean: a conservative comic wouldn't have any violence.

I also appreciate that some comedy is based on looking at the dark underbelly of existence: the Bill Hicks, Frankie Boyles, etc -- their humour is based on announcing twisted things, seeming twisted themselves, and allowing audiences to vicariously be entertained by the bleaker shades of life. To an extent, such comedians even allow us address such dark topics--as, without them first being joked about, they'd be left as 'unmentionable'. Yet, I don't think you could argue that this comic represents that--I don't think anyone's going to think: 'Huh, yea, it's kinda weird that we consider female-on-male violence more-so acceptable'. At risk of being unfair to QC's audience, I think most will think: 'Haha! He got smacked!'. Therewith, this comic isn't pushing any button, it's not highlighting a weird facet of real-life, isn't not being darkly comic, it's just playing a social cliche for laughs---and I find that unfair, uncomfortable, and sad.

IT'S A COMIC STRIP.

And? You'll need to expand your argument, really. Any form of art: comics, webcomics, music videos, films, prose, youtube vlogs, are encoded with ideologies. Similarly, as they are consumed by audiences, they interact with hegemony. In other words, comics are both created with embedded view-points, standards, etc--and these view-points are present to audiences; whom decide if they are right, wrong, happy, sad, funny, dark, hopeful, despondent, etc--via emotional and thoughtful reaction. Therewith, it's really not enough to say: 'it's not real,; therefore, don't complain'. Consider why you find what's contained in the comic entertaining. I have considered why I find it uncomfortable--and my thoughts regarding this are in my above post.

(English isn't my primary language. Apologies for typos).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 05 Oct 2012, 11:24
All I can say then, is that you don't enjoy fiction then, slapstick humor, sitcoms, fiction in general, humor...

I could go on and get really into it, but I'm afraid I'd end up being a condescending asshole in the process.

You're making much-ado about nothing and it is an incredible wasteful line of questioning that adds nothing to the discussion of the comic as a whole, particularly this strip at large.

There is nothing unfair, sad, or uncomfortable unless you're one of those that is offended by everything no matter the context or purpose.  Geez. 

This is why I left it as I did.  I didn't wanna waste the time answering a tired, drawn out, overly worn and tired out psychoanalytical social argument about a comic's use of a little smack to Angus' drawn out stare of Marigold's ass.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 05 Oct 2012, 11:30
Is it dead horse time again?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mad Cat on 05 Oct 2012, 11:37
Dayum! Mar-Bear's got some junk in the trunk.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Oct 2012, 12:45
It's not just  comic strip, it's a slice-of-life comic strip.  You can't say that this doesn't happen in real life. 

And I'd like to point out that it's just basic communication.  Faye let Angus know, directly, that she knows exactly what he was doing and thinking, and that she's not cool with it.  And this was done without a screaming match / argument that would have seriously embarrassed Mar-bear. 

And if you don't think this will be discussed (at length) by the two of them later, then you haven't been involved in a serious relationship! 

Besides, Faye's had experience with shorts (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=385) like (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=386) these (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=387) before...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: muffin_of_chaos on 05 Oct 2012, 13:16
If you want to defuse the potential argument, why not just agree eschatonic has a fairly sound point that could be debated but that you don't want to because it's been done before?
Why the rudeness?

Just curious.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Oct 2012, 13:26
Sorry, but aside from jwhouk yelling "It's just a comic!", where's the rudeness?  IsItColdInHere was quite polite and explanatory.  I hope I wasn't rude! 

A few others may have been a bit short, but the point's been made; this is a work of fiction, with less-than-perfect characters, and they're going to do things we don't agree with.  You can complain about it, but really, what's the point?  Faye's backhanding Angus isn't going to lead to any battered spouses, it's just something that we can all identify with.  Condone it?  Well, probably not.  Deal with it?  Sure. 

Deserve it? 

Probably.  At least, the guys among us do. 


Probably a few of the women, as well...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Interlude on 05 Oct 2012, 13:58
Hmmm. Maybe Faye will decide it's about time for them to move in together......   

I never have any idea how much time has passed in QC world. How long have Faye and Angus been dating? Obviously, they wouldn't make any life-altering changes over a quick booty check, but I do think they are the most concrete couple in the comic. Whether or not Faye is up for it at the moment, I have been wondering if any discussion of the idea would come up in the near future.

Also, against my better judgment, I will add that I disagree with Faye's use of "violence," even in the realm of slapstick humor. However, I don't think her behavior is necessarily condoned in the wider view of the comic. A light, playful smack is fine, in my opinion, coming from either partner. Anything that is more than that should not be accepted, but considering Faye is the only one who really crosses that line, I don't think Jeph is trying to show it as "normal" or acceptable behavior. In fact, I think showing Faye as a deeply scarred individual, going to therapy, etc. shows that some of her behaviors are NOT okay, and she herself knows she needs to work on certain things. That's the key point-- she knows that she needs to make changes in her life, and she has actually toned down significantly.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mothykins on 05 Oct 2012, 14:24
On DAT ASS: Marigold is kind of hot, in a strange way. Really, if she washed her face more and maybe brushed her hair out with some conditioner, she'd easily be the hottest character in QC. IMHO.

On backhanding: Domestic violence is only considered a male-over-female concept because we rarely see it portrayed seriously in the reverse. It's usually either playful on the woman's part or deserved on the man's. When it's guy-over-girl, it's almost always portrayed seriously. And that's what it really boils down to.

Go read the comic, "Digger." It has a case of girl-over-guy domestic violence that'll absolutely break your heart. It also shows that perception is in portrayal. Nobody's okay with the woman in that comic hurting the man, because it's portrayed seriously.

I'll admit that guy-over-girl smacking/hitting/flicking, even when portrayed in a non-serious way, would be severely frowned upon. The only exception I can think of is if the guy in question was particularly weak, childish, or effeminate. Double standards. As long as they don't leech into real life, they're not much more than an annoyance.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 14:24
IT'S A COMIC STRIP.
Honestly? This is just as bad, as it's basically an insult to the medium.  Just because we don't need to overanalyze that particular thing doesn't mean you should result to this.

Also, I'm pretty sure she wasn't so much upset that he was looking but more that he was way too obvious about it.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 05 Oct 2012, 14:53
"Oh dear, a man looking with interest at a woman's backside was depicted - this is clearly sexist and shouldn't have happened."

But then, you see, any worthwhile story depicts things that are unfortunate as well as those which are ideal (perhaps).  It's the nature of storytelling that is not trivial.  Would you want to forbid the writing of murder stories because murder is bad?  What about all those women being jilted in romantic novels?  On this occasion Angus got his comeuppance - but if we are seriously going to debate Faye's action, we should give equal time to Angus's, and look at them both in the context of the whole comic, not just the one strip.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjoker on 05 Oct 2012, 15:14
I feel a bit guilty, my thought process of the comic was as follows 'Bad Angus, Bad Angus...Good ass Good ass'
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 05 Oct 2012, 15:30
An archive binge might provide context for Faye's whack.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 16:15
If my girlfriend caught me doing that and responded as such, I'd probably just pretend to be shocked, and then say "worth it".

I'm not saying this would be a wise thing to do (or for that matter, that she'd respond as such).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: themacnut on 05 Oct 2012, 17:08
Angus deserved that smack. DESERVED it I say; a Real Man (TM) only has eyes for his woman! Other women simply CEASE TO EXIST for the man truly in love.

On the other hand, I'd risk a smack for a good long look at Dat Ass too.  :-D :laugh: In fact, I'd probably end up getting smacked twice.  :evil:

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: iduguphergrave on 05 Oct 2012, 17:11
On DAT ASS: Marigold is kind of hot, in a strange way. Really, if she washed her face more and maybe brushed her hair out with some conditioner, she'd easily be the hottest character in QC. IMHO.

I think her hair looks pretty hot right here. I've always liked the bedhead look. Really, everything about the back of her body in panel two is great :3
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Oct 2012, 17:49
(Thoughtful comments about social standards and how fiction both reflects and shapes them)

Welcome, new person!

If we're going to get into the semiotics of QC, let's remember what the author said:
Quote from: Jeph
For future reference, if you're trying to divine some overarching moral standpoint from my comic: the moral of my comic is that people should try to be nice to each other.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 18:00
I think Faye does try, even if she doesn't always succeed.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Oct 2012, 18:21
And the guy who usually does the WCDT's gets a bit touchy at times.

Especially when he's getting older by the hour.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 05 Oct 2012, 18:47
Angus deserved that smack. DESERVED it I say; a Real Man (TM) only has eyes for his woman! Other women simply CEASE TO EXIST for the man truly in love.
Sorry, I call bullshit.  Does not actually work that way.

(And before anyone asks - applies, IMO, equally to any and all genders, not just straight cis males looking at straight cis females.)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mothykins on 05 Oct 2012, 18:51
It was tough to choose between Marigold's ass and Marten's "S-shut up! Shut all the way up!" You've gotta admit, Marten was pretty adorable in that panel.

I eventually went for the latter, anyway. Dat ass pretty much speaks for itself ;3
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Kugai on 05 Oct 2012, 19:18
*Doffs Bowler hat*
Can we borrow it? - a colleague became a British citizen yesterday, and overnight his desk has been tastefully decorated with all the red, white and blue paraphernalia left over from our summer jubilee celebrations; and an England rugby shirt to replace his NZ one.  But we're missing a bowler.

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!


Angus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTx5sqvVJ4)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 19:20
Angus deserved that smack. DESERVED it I say; a Real Man (TM) only has eyes for his woman! Other women simply CEASE TO EXIST for the man truly in love.
Sorry, I call bullshit.  Does not actually work that way.
I think he knows that. I'm honestly not quite sure how you missed the sarcasm there.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: mustang6172 on 05 Oct 2012, 19:27
Damn, Jeph draws one fine ass!  Is that a weird thing to compliment a guy on?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 19:38
I can't see why it would be.  I wonder if this'll be a thing on Monday.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: themacnut on 05 Oct 2012, 19:39
Angus deserved that smack. DESERVED it I say; a Real Man (TM) only has eyes for his woman! Other women simply CEASE TO EXIST for the man truly in love.
Sorry, I call bullshit.  Does not actually work that way.
I think he knows that. I'm honestly not quite sure how you missed the sarcasm there.

It was indeed sarcasm. That's why I mentioned the part about happily risking getting smacked twice for looking as Marigold went to the kitchen then back to her bedroom. Faye would be FURIOUS at me :evil: O0 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 05 Oct 2012, 20:07
boob-tube
That's an article of clothing? I thought "boob-tube" meant television.

Probably an alternate to 'tube top', which is, quite literally, a boob tube  :-D

On today's comic - I predict this could be the start of the first major argument Faye and Angus have. Maybe. Possibly. Or I could be wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 20:08
I doubt it, Faye always forgives Angus's shenanigoats.  Although she does seem surprised by this.  Maybe she's worried because of her experience with Sven.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 05 Oct 2012, 20:12
Indeed, I can see this instance playing on her insecurities. She's well and over Sven, obviously, but considering how his cheating really hurt her, I can see this as hitting on a vulnerable place.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Oct 2012, 20:32
Exactly.  Also...what if Angus is still sitting for the exam?  It might seem excessive at this point, but it's not unthinkable.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Oct 2012, 21:05
She also may remember his comment after his "rejection" of Marigold: "Whoa, boobs."
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 05 Oct 2012, 22:47
ON THE MATTER OF "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE": the reason that bringing that up got such a rude response is manifold, eschatonic/DNR/muffin_of_chaos/anyone else new to the forums, and I will attempt to enlighten:

1.) Jeph has said, on these forums, that Faye's seemingly violent overreactions are clearly, obviously not okay in real life (with the exception of such as the OWLS Incident) and when you can parse that they are meant for comedy, they are in fact meant for comedy--Friday's strip being a prime example.

2.) Many, many, many posters have come through here bearing the effigy of Faye as Domestic Abuser and decrying her as violent, even psychopathic. Not one of these posters has done so in good faith. They have an agenda, and that agenda is tearing Faye down because they personally dislike her, or they feel she has sinned by not fucking Marten, or they are projecting an ex that they want to do violence of their own to onto her character, etc. This agenda was and is a stupid fucking agenda, and those who post under it are not welcome here. Jeph is not portraying a psychopath.

3.) Jeph has also stated that he gets really aggravated by reading the argument of how violent Faye is over and over again and it is one of the reasons he stays off the forums, is these circular arguments and revolving-door character hate sessions: Faye is violent and abusive, Dora is a frigid harpy, Tai is an obnoxious stereotype, etc., etc.

4.) Jeph is not the only one who tires of revolving-door character hate sessions, or of constant overanalysis of material that, it can be reasonably assumed, is meant for comedy. That's why, I think, jwhouk fairly shouted IT'S A COMIC STRIP: this was not, to my eyes, the beginning of some story arc on Faye and Angus' troubled domestic situation, it is a one-off gag that is nearly as old as situational comedy itself.

FINALLY, I wouid like to caution people trying to play the equivalency game that while violence is never okay, and it is despicable for a woman to victimize a man, it is not the same situation as a man victimizing a woman--there are different power structures in play.

I hope I've been edifying here and pretty chill and I know it's a lot of words, but try to read it. If we really need a tl;dr, suffice to say this: we had this argument before, everyone who brought Faye's "violent nature" up was a jackass, Jeph has addressed it and is super tired of it, so is the rest of the forum.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: eschatonic on 05 Oct 2012, 23:15
Welcome, new person!

You had no way of knowing this, and it's not a rules thing, but that issue has become an Oh No Not That Again discussion. The points that come up every time, in case you were wondering, are It's Just A Cartoon, It's Just A Smack, But She Left A Bruise On Marten, But He Never Asked Her To Stop, But He Shouldn't Have To, I Smack My Friends And Vice Versa, and several others I don't have the energy to recall.

Thank you, this brings a little perspective to the hostility here I guess.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Oenone on 06 Oct 2012, 00:52
Interesting -- I wonder if Faye's going to start being more sympathetic to Dora's insecurities now, since Faye's boyfriend is living with a girl who had a crush on him and all. It kinda made me think of this http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1637 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1637).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: St.Clair on 06 Oct 2012, 01:01
Dr. ROFLPWN:

While I appreciate the information, and sympathize with the author's position, it is my opinion that much of the supposed "comedy" of this work derives from the flaws of the characters, and how those flaws interact.  Naturally, some people - perhaps as a result of dealing with such flaws in themselves or other people they know in real life - are going to take them much more seriously.

tl;dr - it's funny 'cause they're fucked up, but some people don't find some flavors of fucked up funny.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 02:20
Dr. ROFLPWN:

While I appreciate the information, and sympathize with the author's position, it is my opinion that much of the supposed "comedy" of this work derives from the flaws of the characters, and how those flaws interact.  Naturally, some people - perhaps as a result of dealing with such flaws in themselves or other people they know in real life - are going to take them much more seriously.

tl;dr - it's funny 'cause they're fucked up, but some people don't find some flavors of fucked up funny.

Perhaps. That's a better argument than most. The comic is based on idiosyncrasies; character faults, be it an inability to maintain relationships, trauma from witnessing a tragedy, being occasionally crippled by germaphobia, experiencing deep social anxiety, etc; and the ways in which the characters all able to deal with their issues--and be relatively close to others; still, with these problems. Therewith, Faye's violence may be considered part of the dark social comedy of Faye's insecurities. That's a tenable argument.

I still find it weird, however, that no-characters seem to vocally consider her actions as unfair, damaging, or hurtful--particularly against the guys, whom hitting is okay. Perhaps the characters know they won't get anywhere with her? Perhaps I'm missing the wood for the trees? Dunno.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: idontunderstand on 06 Oct 2012, 02:24
I guess she just didn't hit him very hard?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 03:01

1.) Jeph has said, on these forums, that Faye's seemingly violent overreactions are clearly, obviously not okay in real life (with the exception of such as the OWLS Incident) and when you can parse that they are meant for comedy, they are in fact meant for comedy--Friday's strip being a prime example.

Claiming 'it's comedy' does not free something from intellectual debate. Moreover, part of the reason why people come to decry the comic, I imagine, is because we're expected to parse these incidences as comedy.

Quote from: Dr. ROFLPWN
2.) Many, many, many posters have come through here bearing the effigy of Faye as Domestic Abuser and decrying her as violent, even psychopathic. Not one of these posters has done so in good faith. They have an agenda, and that agenda is tearing Faye down because they personally dislike her, or they feel she has sinned by not fucking Marten, or they are projecting an ex that they want to do violence of their own to onto her character, etc. This agenda was and is a stupid fucking agenda, and those who post under it are not welcome here. Jeph is not portraying a psychopath.

With respect, you cannot be serious. My argument is in no-way impacted by the fact that QC's story-arc hasn't included Marten and Faye fucking. And people who make arguments that depicting domestic violence, especially in comedy, is an ideologically loaded representation ... are doing so because... 'they are projecting an ex that they want to do violence of their own to onto her character'. Again, you cannot be serious.

I have no agenda. I was browsing webcomics--I haven't done it for a while. I came onto QC. I felt uncomfortable reading it--as it was showing domestic violence--and so I came here, to see what things users were saying about it, Perhaps there was back-story I'd missed, some hidden message I wasn't picking up on, etc. There is no agenda here. Arguing that people who disagree with you secretly have a nefarious plot that they won't admit ... that's just immature.

3.) Jeph has also stated that he gets really aggravated by reading the argument of how violent Faye is over and over again and it is one of the reasons he stays off the forums, is these circular arguments and revolving-door character hate sessions: Faye is violent and abusive, Dora is a frigid harpy, Tai is an obnoxious stereotype, etc., etc.

So? He doesn't come on here because his work is consistently criticized. You know that's not a good reason to not criticize something, right? Because, if you do, the artist won't hang out with you ... as said, so?

Jeph can write whatever he want. People can respond to it however they want.

4.) Jeph is not the only one who tires of revolving-door character hate sessions, or of constant overanalysis of material that, it can be reasonably assumed, is meant for comedy. That's why, I think, jwhouk fairly shouted IT'S A COMIC STRIP: this was not, to my eyes, the beginning of some story arc on Faye and Angus' troubled domestic situation, it is a one-off gag that is nearly as old as situational comedy itself..

Again, so? Being tired of hearing arguments does not make those arguments null or void. In turn, claiming; 'you're just over-analysing', 'it's just a comic / music video / book / video game / song / poem / film / documentary / blog / etc, (delete where appropriate)', and so on, is just attempting to dismiss arguments without engaging in them.  As for 'it is a one-off gag that is nearly as old as situational comedy' - so, as has been asked before, if wife-beating was age-old comic trope, you wouldn't mind Angus back-handing Faye? Because, you know, it's classic. Saying that something is old means nothing ... other than it is old. It is not a way to artistically justify anything.

FINALLY, I wouid like to caution people trying to play the equivalency game that while violence is never okay, and it is despicable for a woman to victimize a man, it is not the same situation as a man victimizing a woman--there are different power structures in play.

Firstly, as with a lot of your post, saying that people arguing that - men hitting women, WRONG; women hitting men, FUNNY - is a social double-standard, counts as playing 'the equivalency game' is pretty rude. This coming from someone who says people playing this game are jackasses.

Moreover, 'there are different power structures in play'. Go on? How is it different if a partner were to back-hand me (a guy) ... than if I were to backhand them (a girl)? What different power structures would inform your belief that a different morality should be applied  to either situation? Men and women are different - physically, biologically, socially, and so forth. However, everyone is different. As well, every conflict (in the broadest sense) has a different power structures at play. Therewith, every violent domestic incident is enacted by unique individuals, and no-one is saying; 'ah, it's exactly the same when a guy hits his wife for burning a steak - than when a woman hits her husband after he lost their child'. No-ones saying; 'it's all the same!'. People, like myself, are arguing violence is just despicable -- and there's a double standard well-ingrained in western society that demonizes domestically violent men, and laughs at domestically violent women..where-as we should be considering all domestic violence to be harrowing.

Pointing out an uneven appraisal of similarly vile actions is not arguing equivalency.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rainforce on 06 Oct 2012, 03:34
So I was just reading the comic and lurking on the forums for other people's reactions (for fun and profit), and then SUDDENLY someone has an outbreak of "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT OK YOU KNOW" and everything goes downhill.
I don't want to be offensive here (I just am, probably), but:
Whoever thinks that something he/she read on a webcomic is applicable to real life has probably some serious Issues.
AS DO THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE ENDLESS PARAGRAPHS ABOUT ONE COMIC STRIP FEATURING A WRISTSLAP.
can we PLEASE not argue pointlessly and excessively about things that don't mat............no wait, that's actually all we do here.
can we please not argue pointlessly and excessively about topics we deem far too serious?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Oct 2012, 03:43
Please keep it calm, folks.

I came onto QC. I felt uncomfortable reading it--as it was showing domestic violence--and so I came here, to see what things users were saying about it,

We all have different triggers.

At what point does a physical action become violence?  Any unsolicited touch? (In some circumstances, yes, certainly.) A gentle poke; a push; a slap across the cheek; a hand on the shoulder; a punch to the face?  It's not necessarily clear.  Context varies, and also our individual history will affect the choice.  Were you beaten as a child? - I was, I suppose, but in a formalised setting (caning at school) that didn't seem to me cruel either then or now (it was also ineffective!).  I did not beat my children, though, but I did sometimes give them a cuff, as much to catch their attention as to punish them.  So Faye's slapping Angus falls within the region I have grown (not uncritically, I should say) to accept.

But I was also brought up to disregard sex and gross physical attributes in dealing with people, and so I am distinctly uncomfortable with the emphasis on butts as a sexual feature which comes up fairly frequently in this comic, and which Angus displayed and was punished for.  Faye's slap barely hurt, I would say - it was the surprise, startling him out of his reverie that Angus reacted to.  The ogling matters more to me than the slap, in fact - but I do not try to impose this view on the rest of the forum (while also trying to maintain a fair and reasonable balance in what I do allow, or conversely frown on).

I suppose the variation in  reactions in this forum displays another slice of life.  A wide range of people come here and try to put their views over.  Sometimes they go over the top and find there's nothing here for them as they can't convert everyone to their specific point of view.  Very occasionally they become so disruptive that they get banned to protect the forum as a whole (I can count the number of times I had to do this over the past two years on the fingers of one hand).  But a lot of people find they can have their arguments respected even when not fully accepted - and this is, I think, a healthy situation.

As for Jeph - he reads here every week or two, but has not responded for a long time.  We try to limit unreasonable criticism of his work simply as a matter of courtesy - he pays for this place to exist for our use, and so we owe him that much by way of thanks.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 06 Oct 2012, 04:17
St. Clair: You're welcome, and yeah, I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that we are going to dissect the awkward interactions and social neuroses that make for comedy around these parts. I merely come bearing a word of  warning against shitstorm bait.

DNR:
1.) I'm not the one "claiming it's comedy"--that's authorial fiat, what Jeph has said on the matter. I can try and find the post?

2.) With respect, I'm totally serious. The forum has had an ugly history of people doing exactly what I described, like a shitty reverse personality cult, and posts like eschatonic's are reminiscent of that. This is the core of why people got rude and dismissive: there's a history of this shit. I'm not saying you are part of that agenda, I'm giving you backstory.

As for "showing domestic violence", really? I think at most you could say it was problematic, but...oh well.

3.) Jeph owns these forums and writes the comic, and I think we should be polite to him. Especially when he's explained his position very plainly. It's a matter of courtesy to the dude whose work we're a fan of. I'm not trying to censor you, but I am pointing out that you're being impolite.

4.) Yes, I (and others) am trying to dismiss this argument, absolutely. Because the argument has been made before, literally at least fifty times now at this point. It is the essence of the proverbial dead horse. I am imploring you not to engage in proverbial equine necromancy as, again, a matter of etiquette.

5.) It is different any time a man strikes a woman from a woman striking a man, because the man has the institutionalized advantage. He has male privilege on his side, and the weight of centuries of institutionalized sexism. A man striking a woman is someone in power victimizing someone who is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.

Hodges: Totally calm over here, hope that's reflected in this post. :) I'm gonna disengage after this, I think, I've basically said my piece.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 06 Oct 2012, 05:03
So I was just reading the comic and lurking on the forums for other people's reactions (for fun and profit), and then SUDDENLY someone has an outbreak of "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT OK YOU KNOW" and everything goes downhill.
I don't want to be offensive here (I just am, probably), but:
Whoever thinks that something he/she read on a webcomic is applicable to real life has probably some serious Issues.
AS DO THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE ENDLESS PARAGRAPHS ABOUT ONE COMIC STRIP FEATURING A WRISTSLAP.
can we PLEASE not argue pointlessly and excessively about things that don't mat............no wait, that's actually all we do here.
can we please not argue pointlessly and excessively about topics we deem far too serious?
Well said, Rainforce.

Let's draw away from the comic and turn to NCIS for a minute. How many people watched the show and enjoyed it... and then turned on it IMMEDIATELY after Agent Gibbs smacks Agent DiNozzo (had to look up the spelling) upside the head for the first time in the series? Anyone?

Now, in a properly organised society, there wouldn't need to be any arguments about the portrayal of violence. There wouldn't be any violence. People would behave as they should. Real life isn't like that, though, and that is what Jeph is depicting in the comic (I suppose...). That we are not perfect, that we all have our faults, and that we still try to live with each other and have fun despite all that.

I grew up in a rough neighbourhood, and I learned at an early age about the physical and emotional scars that goes with domestic violence (not from personal experience, mind you, but it was pretty much all around me), but I still saw this in a light-hearted way. Most women, if they saw their boyfriend/husband/love interest staring at another lady's ass would want to, and maybe also do, the exact same thing. I also saw the humour in the skillet incident (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=697), enjoyed the Vespavenger (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=720) mini-arc (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=721), and grinned when Momo beats up Pintsize (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2002), and every other point along the way (drama, dramatics, swords and all (I tried to find the comic where the college girl talks to Dora about her failed moves on Marten, but I used all my archive-fu skills on those three tidbits)).

To sum it up: nobody lives life like The Brady Bunch (not even their real-life selves, apparently). Keeping yourself in a politically correct bubble will not change the fact that the world is like that and worse sometimes. QC comics shows this in a light-hearted and humourous way, and we can either enjoy the occasionally bumpy ride, or unbuckle our seat belts and leave for smoother, wildly unrealistic PC pastures.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Oct 2012, 06:04
I would also add that there can be an element of play.  Faye and Angus can perhaps be considered as merely joshing around.  Do we stop kids from rough and tumble play because they are learning to accept violence?  I'd be unwilling to suggest that that is a necessary change in the way we bring up children - and well-adjusted adults still have a bit of child in them too.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Oct 2012, 07:26
I'd like to point out two things:

1. It IS a comic strip. Most of what's done here is for the lulz and to keep the characters - well, in character. Faye has had a history of punching since the double-digits in strip numbers, and it's how she responds to things. She HAS been called on it by Raven (too lazy to look up the exact strip, but it's the one where she compares her to "a kitty who scratches all the time").

2. IT'S MY BIRTHDAY. NO ARGUING on my birthday in MY THREAD.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Oct 2012, 08:28
YOUR thread? 

You just built it. 


We have to live here...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Oct 2012, 08:34
Hey, I live here, too! :P  :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Oct 2012, 08:35
And The MOMENT OF THE WEEK was?

Marigold's OOPS!    0 (0%)
The entire internet is mad at me!    1 (3.4%)
Only one thing to do: Cat GIFs? LOTS of Cat GIFs.    2 (6.9%)
Here, Marten! Open it and see! Tee hee!    1 (3.4%)
Oh, hey, Emily invited you too!    0 (0%)
Yeah, what'd you think it was, a love letter?    0 (0%)
OH MY GOD YOU ARE PRECIOUS (Sh-shut up! Shut it all the way up!)    5 (17.2%)
Party at Emily Azuma's parent's lake house! (And Cristi's handwriting!)    1 (3.4%)
You should invite all your friends, too! There's plenty of room!    0 (0%)
A thousand people would probably be too many. (How big is your parents' lake house?)    0 (0%)
Faye with the watiress outfit - "Hey, Buttass, what's up?"    1 (3.4%)
Emily the intern is throwing a party, wanna come?    0 (0%)
Dora: Am I invited? Marten: Oh yeah, def- (Tai: AAH! AAAAH!)    1 (3.4%)
Tai: One of my interns is throwing a party. Wanna come?    1 (3.4%)
Marigold walks by. (DAT A$$)    10 (34.5%)
Angus gets caught "peeking"    2 (6.9%)
GIBBS-SMACK!    3 (10.3%)
What was that? NOTHING!    1 (3.4%)

Total Members Voted: 29
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Redball on 06 Oct 2012, 10:31
How many women, having just walked past a male roommate and his girlfriend, having heard a "Smack!" a second later, would have needed to ask, "What was that?" Marigold, perhaps having no idea a guy would watch her bottom, I can understand. Most women?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Oct 2012, 10:33
Welcome, new person!

You had no way of knowing this, and it's not a rules thing, but that issue has become an Oh No Not That Again discussion. The points that come up every time, in case you were wondering, are It's Just A Cartoon, It's Just A Smack, But She Left A Bruise On Marten, But He Never Asked Her To Stop, But He Shouldn't Have To, I Smack My Friends And Vice Versa, and several others I don't have the energy to recall.

Thank you, this brings a little perspective to the hostility here I guess.

Further, I believe you are posting in good faith, based on what I've seen so far.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 10:33
[potentially inflammatory statement removed by moderator]

The phrase 'he who fights monsters..' springs to me, in response to several comments made. For example, using all caps to e-cry that; 'OMG. IT'S JUST A COMIC. WHY ARE YOU TALKING IT SO SERIOUSLY'. As I've said in a previous post, books, films, comics, portraits, prose stories - forms of fiction, and creative non-fiction, etc - have artists whom color their creations with ideologies--standards, norms, etc. They create worlds and inject it with character who hold certain views. In the same way art may be critiqued for it's literal presentation--e.g, in comics, slapdash coloring work--it can be critiqued for the aforementioned society layered into it. That's how criticism works--and, further, there's no 'entry-qualification' for criticism. It can be the entire Godfather trilogy, or a single frame of The Simpsons--the former, perhaps, considered for it's mixing of the American dream (unprecedented access to power and fortune) and the mobster-ism of the 'old country; the latter, it's mise-en-scene. On that note, you're doing QC a disservice, it's a hugely popular web-comic--arguably more eagerly read nowadays, by a lot of people, and for a greater period, than plenty of classic-literature. How many books have thousands of pages read by thousands of readers every, single, day? If any justification were needed for its critique--its popularity and long-life are obvious claims.

On this topic, there are two juxtaposition counter-arguments going on presently, that: you shouldn't criticize because it's just a comic, and, it's shouldn't be criticized because it is a social mirror to life--it has couples arguing, hitting each-other, etc, because that happens with real-couples. As is obvious, there arguments cannot co-exist. Keeping with the sentiment of the latter, (that QC is being somewhat 'real'), there seems to be a consistent argument being made I'd prefer QC to be stale, PC, and conservative. This is somewhat of a straw-man argument. Authors can do what they want--I  only wish to comment on the way in which do so. I don't want, nor expect, QC to be a stuffy melo-drama with Victorian sensibilities--I just want to comment on it's representation of interrelationship violence, on a board (which I thought) encouraged discussion about the comics.

This brings me to the matter of the author. It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly. Yes, Jeph provides the forum. Thus, he has the right to ban users, closed topics, whatever. But 'you should be nicer, this is X's domain, not yours' isn't the best retort when people present views which differ to your own--because, really, have I not been reasonably postie. As well, surely Jeph is as much indebted to his readers, as his readers are to him--that's a different augment, though.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Oct 2012, 11:01
Criticism is entirely within the rules here. I wouldn't moderate on any other basis.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Madmartigan on 06 Oct 2012, 11:35
So I was just reading the comic and lurking on the forums for other people's reactions (for fun and profit), and then SUDDENLY someone has an outbreak of "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT OK YOU KNOW" and everything goes downhill.
I don't want to be offensive here (I just am, probably), but:
Whoever thinks that something he/she read on a webcomic is applicable to real life has probably some serious Issues.
AS DO THE PEOPLE THAT WRITE ENDLESS PARAGRAPHS ABOUT ONE COMIC STRIP FEATURING A WRISTSLAP.
can we PLEASE not argue pointlessly and excessively about things that don't mat............no wait, that's actually all we do here.
can we please not argue pointlessly and excessively about topics we deem far too serious?

The sad fact of the matter of people decrying something in a strip where they don't even know if it has an incredibly harmless slap like a wrist flick or full blown slap.  I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. 

But on the whole "this comic makes me uncomfortable" and I just "skimmed it a bit"....Ugh.  If something unsettles you, why bother with it then?  I imagine you abhor contact sports then as well?  Maybe not.  I'm just making blind assumptions like you are with Faye that this is some depiction of domestic violence.  Moreover, the overreaction to something so benign on the whole I find completely flabbergasting.  With the long winded rants, you'd think Faye had subjected Angus to a week of harsh verbal abuse followed by smacking him absentmindedly with a mace because he forgot to put the toilet seat down.  That's what I don't get.

It's like you're trying to force some quasi-utopian world you've built up for yourself where you expect everyone to fall into your abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters.  At least in relation to this strip.

I also gather from the rants you have not read the strip through in its entirety, which again, would discredit some of the argument as context is also key, both to the characters and the overarching type of story Jeph is depicting.  I shudder to think what your opinion of pintsize is.

As others have stated, Jeph is basing this strip of the premise of everything learning how to be nice to each other.  Each character has grown/is growing.  And they've done that through interactions with all the characters.  Marten helped Faye begin to confront her problems.  Faye in turn put Dora on the path of addressing her problems through therapy. 

What I find incredibly annoying and self-ignorant, are those who ignore that overarching story arcs of the story, how these characters have come together for better and worse in favor of one minuscule little aside where a character got a jostle for staring at some booty.  It's just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking.
Title: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Oct 2012, 14:00
It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly.

Although obviously Jeph can moderate, he's only done so once in the last two years. It's me and the other mods who run this place. We do not object to criticism of Jeph's work here; however, we do object when people come here to insult him. But then we do not want anyone to trade insults here, so yes, please be polite.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Oct 2012, 15:00
It's just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking.

If it gets that bad you won't have to say or do anything: there are moderators for that.

In the meantime it's prudent to assume good faith.

Oh, good reminder about how the characters are portrayed as improving, with each other's help. You didn't say it, but there's an implication there that artistically they have to start out screwed up so that there's room to show them improving. I agree.

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 15:30
5.) It is different any time a man strikes a woman from a woman striking a man, because the man has the institutionalized advantage. He has male privilege on his side, and the weight of centuries of institutionalized sexism. A man striking a woman is someone in power victimizing someone who is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.

It's late. If you like, I'll respond to your other points another time--otherwise, thanks for being polite to me.

5.) That's a fair point, but I feel it's flawed.

Firstly, consider this--yes, men perhaps are empowered, but are they empowered enough to survive being victims? Male privilege and centuries of institutionalized sexism is a double-edged sword--it's produced an ideal of masculinity as being strong, the leader, the fighter, the warrior, the most intelligent, the most able, etc. One thing it doesn't have an ideal--is the injured male. Male privileged overwhelming privileges men who ascribe to tradition roles of masculinity, and being the victim of violence isn't one of those. Centuries of institutionalized sexism emboldens and allows men to be the best athletes, most heroic soldiers, most acclaimed writers, most intelligent academics and scientists, and most brilliant politicians--however, it spares no sympathy for men hurt; when they should be strong; it has no sympathy for men who fail to be the what privilege allows certain men to be. For one, it has no space for male victims of domestic violence. Yes, it's arguably strengthening the idea of women as 'perpetual victims', 'inherently weak', 'in need of protection', and other sexist ideas--but society pities women who face violence, and attempts to 'save' them. The same does not happen the other way around.

Second, I can't help but feel that...well, you're propitiating the same sexist system of un-even power that we both despise. You're (seemingly) saying that there simply aren't any relationships where-in women are in control, that there are no truly empowered women (--who might be capable of victimizing someone else from a position of power). You're (seemingly) saying that all women are some surf-class. I mean, on the micro scale, do you really think there are no relationships where-in women wield the balance of power?

It's been said that Jeph provides this forum for us. Therewith, we should be polite. I'm uncomfortable with this logic, somewhat. It reminds me of what users of CAD forum users say whenever Buckley has acted dickishly.

Although obviously Jeph can moderate, he's only done so once in the last two years. It's me and the other mods who run this place. We do not object to criticism of Jeph's work here; however, we do object when people come here to insult him. But then we do not want anyone to trade insults here, so yes, please be polite.

With respect though, as I asked, have I not been polite? Have I been hugely rude? Have I insulted Jeph? Perhaps I should look through the comments more, but it appeared my 'geez, you guys are like bronies' jokes has been removed--where as, 'What I find incredibly annoying and self-ignorant ... just absurd and bespeaks of laziness, agenda seeking flaws in something you didn't really like in the first place, or, dare I say it....Trolling and attention whore seeking', has been left up. It's been implied that I'm impolite, trolling, an attention whore; that everyone whom has voiced similar sentiments to me, in the past, has been a jackass; this all seems a lot more callus--and personally insulting than--what I'm saying. I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm trying to discuss my feelings about a strip.


The sad fact of the matter of people decrying something in a strip where they don't even know if it has an incredibly harmless slap like a wrist flick or full blown slap.  I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. 
.

I'm not decrying it. I'm criticizing it; not damning it.

Second, the response to your point is laden within your own argument. We don't know if it was an incredibly harmless slap or full blown slap. You believe it was the former, I believe the latter. Therewith, we are both free to form opinions on the strip--based on what we see. I see it as a full blown slap due to their being an all-caps 'SMACK!' coming off the contact. As well, he appears to be pulling his head away, his eye is closed; his eyebrows furrowed. Further, his 'Ow' has an exclamation mark, and in bold; alike the later 'Nothing', implying it's said pretty loudly. This is my visual-reading of the strip. It is me forming opting for a side--just like you see it was a 'wrist flick', no doubt through visually reading the strip a different way. Both of our opinions here are valid.

But on the whole "this comic makes me uncomfortable" and I just "skimmed it a bit"....Ugh.  If something unsettles you, why bother with it then?  I imagine you abhor contact sports then as well?  Maybe not.  I'm just making blind assumptions like you are with Faye that this is some depiction of domestic violence.
.

Why is it a blind assumption?

To make further note of my QC reading, years ago; I used to read the comic regularly. I've read from strip 1 onward. I believe I stopped roughly when Marten broke up with Dora--mostly due to professional commitments meaning I had less free time. When I had more free time, I began reading again; although, usually once a week, or so. Again, I stopped--professional commitments. I stopped roughly when they went into space to see Hannelore's father--I remember thinking. 'Wait, I must be missing something. They're in space now'. By that point, I was only half reading it, and I suddenly realized I'd drifted away from the story-arc. Therewith, I'm making blind assumptions about Faye? Surely...insecurity regarding abandonment--from her father, boyfriends, etc; flippant-ness often verging on rudeness; a heart of gold, strong commitment to her friends, hidden behind of occasional coldness. Surely that's Faye 101. As her bio says, she's 'endearingly combative'.

Yes. It made me feel uncomfortable. I'm not allowed to be something? Have you never read anything which made you feel; 'hey, wait? that's...kinda weird', and then talked to your friends about it, or on a community dedicated to discussing whatever it was?

Lastly, I'm fine with combat sports. I teach a Eskrima on weekends.

The overreaction to something so benign on the whole I find completely flabbergasting.

As you said, ' I took it as a "I know where your eyes are, mister" wrist flick. The reading of it as something benign is something you're doing--an individual visual-reading--which I'm doing, as well, and coming out with a different interruption.

With the long winded rants, you'd think Faye had subjected Angus to a week of harsh verbal abuse followed by smacking him absentmindedly with a mace because he forgot to put the toilet seat down.  That's what I don't get.

'Rants' you're not really countering. These post takes around a minute or so of my time. Now, you doing what other posters have done--something which I've already argued against--exaggerating. I see the comic as this: Faye hitting Angus hard, and I find that weird. 

It's like you're trying to force some quasi-utopian world you've built up for yourself where you expect everyone to fall into your abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters.  At least in relation to this strip.

Again, you're doing what other posters have done--something I've, again, argued against. Using a straw man augment. I'm not trying to force a utopian world view--if that is what you're taking from my arguments, I really don't know what to say. I don't want 'everyone to fall into [my] abstractions of the rules of perfect human interaction and those who stray as domestic monsters'. Again, that's exaggerating, using a straw-man argument, and being silly. All I want is this: a discussion about the fact we're a comic where-in a girlfriend hits her boyfriend ... we're reading a comic which has that dynamic, which has characters that do that ... and yet don't seem to talk about -- (no-one, for some time, seems to have brought up Faye's 'issues'; for lake of a better word, which I think are still a major part of the comic).

I've legitimately been interested to read what some of the posters have said in response to me--e.g, those that have talked about their reading of it as...dark bit of a real-life, cathartic--that they enjoy the strip because it's characters are fucked up. That's an interesting discussing. But implying, completely without justification, that I'm some art-Nazi...who wants to impose a world view onto art...that's just pointless.



(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.


I'm not going to reply to the rest of your message' not now at least, as I feel I've hopefully answered the fair points raised in it (e.g how long I've read QC), and I'll ignore what I feel to be the jerkish points--e.g the implication that I'm just an attention whore.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 06 Oct 2012, 15:56

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.

But it's already been stated, repeatedly, that this topic has been brought up over and over again, ad-nauseum in the past, and I assume that nothing here has any new points that haven't been heard by everyone else in the past, if I read the subtext of IICIH's post correctly, while taking into account that this has come up before. Just because you (or I, for that matter) weren't around for said discussions, doesn't not mean they didn't happen, and frankly, I can't blame people for not wanting (or frankly, needing) to rehash it for the umpteenth time.

It was requested, politely, that the matter be dropped, and you are still (politely) insisting that it needs to be rehashed. One thing I've found with this forum, is that it's take it or leave it - if people don't like how things are run, or at the very least can't tolerate it, then they are more than welcome to move on to other places; no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to keep them here. For those that understand and can, at the very least, respect how thing are run (note that respecting how things are run, and agreeing with it, are two entirely separate matters), are more than welcome to stay. At least, that's how it looks, from my observations.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DNR on 06 Oct 2012, 16:23

(moderator)
Nobody's come up with an original insight yet in this discussion. Please put down the sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
(/moderator)

I'm genuinely curious. What, to you, would constituent original insight into this discussion? Because, by the sounds of a lot uses here, not talking about it at all...seems the only advised and engaged (if not original) way of dealing with this.

But it's already been stated, repeatedly, that this topic has been brought up over and over again, ad-nauseum in the past, and I assume that nothing here has any new points that haven't been heard by everyone else in the past, if I read the subtext of IICIH's post correctly, while taking into account that this has come up before. Just because you (or I, for that matter) weren't around for said discussions, doesn't not mean they didn't happen, and frankly, I can't blame people for not wanting (or frankly, needing) to rehash it for the umpteenth time.

It was requested, politely, that the matter be dropped, and you are still (politely) insisting that it needs to be rehashed. One thing I've found with this forum, is that it's take it or leave it - if people don't like how things are run, or at the very least can't tolerate it, then they are more than welcome to move on to other places; no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to keep them here. For those that understand and can, at the very least, respect how thing are run (note that respecting how things are run, and agreeing with it, are two entirely separate matters), are more than welcome to stay. At least, that's how it looks, from my observations.

Perhaps. Thanks for the measure response to what I said. It may be a case of perceptive. As you said, I simply haven't been around for the amount of times this has reported happened. It's perhaps akin to running an atheism-based website which, on a monthly basis, has a creationist pop-up on the forum. (note: I'm not saying anything with that example, only that it'd get annoying for the webmasters to constantly deal with the same exact problem). The reason I haven't dropped it is simple, and partly the same as the admin. I feel like there hasn't been any real discussion. Don't get me wrong, there has been some--e.g with DR. Thingy--but it's mostly been: 'this again, jeez', 'you just want politic correctness!', 'stop analyzing stuff' etc. Perhaps those posts come from this topic being done to death, however--where-in, before, discussion was had...but no real impasse was met. I'll take your advise, and assume I'm beating a horse which this forum has decided to put to sleep--in other words, let it go.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Oct 2012, 16:33
With respect though, as I asked, have I not been polite? Have I been hugely rude? Have I insulted Jeph?

I have not suggested that you have not been polite (I didn't see the remark deleted by another moderator, so I can't comment on that).  I was answering your remark that you were uncomfortable with the logic that we should be polite because it's Jeph's forum.

However, I would remind you that there can come a point at which reiterating the same point at greater and greater length does become rude in itself.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 06 Oct 2012, 18:31
DNR, perhaps a dive through previous WCDTs might yield the answers you're looking for, as far as how far discussions have gone in the past, and might give a bit of a sense of closure to said discussion if you read what's come before? As I've said, I'm pretty new here, so I wouldn't personally know where to begin. But some of the veterans of the site might be able to give you an approximate timeframe for which to begin your search.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 06 Oct 2012, 19:31
I'm gonna try to do this in one sentence:

If Angus had really had a problem with it, Faye would have said "Nothing" in response to Marigold, but Angus would have said "Why did you hit me?"
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Vurogj on 06 Oct 2012, 20:15
Angus may or may not have a problem with it. He has a long history of putting his foot in his mouth with Faye, and he's tried really hard over the length of their knowing each other to get better at not doing it. He might well want to say "Why did you hit me?", but be good enough to not say it in front of Marigold. In panel 4, Faye is looking at Angus because he did a wrong thing. Angus is avoiding eye contact with... who? Faye because he's in the wrong, or Marigold because he's not comfortable lying to her when says "nothing"?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Oct 2012, 20:16
DNR, perhaps a dive through previous WCDTs might yield the answers you're looking for, as far as how far discussions have gone in the past, and might give a bit of a sense of closure to said discussion if you read what's come before? As I've said, I'm pretty new here, so I wouldn't personally know where to begin. But some of the veterans of the site might be able to give you an approximate timeframe for which to begin your search.

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html for example.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 07 Oct 2012, 00:03
I don't really want to get deeply involved in this discussion, but there is a question I want to ask, regarding something I haven't seen addressed yet (maybe I missed it).

If you believe that the kind of slapstick depicted in the disputed comic normalizes domestic violence, or even violence of any kind: do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Because if there is none, then as far as I can tell, the rest of the discussion is just noise.

I am not asking purely to try and disprove the assertion (though I am disinclined to believe it, to be honest) - I am genuinely curious to know if there is any solid evidence out there. Cheers.

To anyone who is beyond sick of the discussion: my apologies.

Anticipating one possible response: yes, I do believe that the burden of proof is on whoever it is asserting that domestic violence is being normalised here.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Rainforce on 07 Oct 2012, 02:07
If you believe that the kind of slapstick depicted in the disputed comic normalizes domestic violence, or even violence of any kind: do you have any evidence to support this assertion?
As much as I disagree with DNR, this is not a very fair question, as it is based on how you interpret this comic/image/piece of art.
It's too much based on perspective as you could ever really "prove" anything here in that regard, unlless one of the characters is openly stating that it is is supposed to be ok/etc. .
...which, in turn, is the source of our discussion here, apparently. So I guess you more or less ask him to rationally explain why he/she is liking/dislking something they personally like/dislike and why that's right.
Or is that just me reading this wrong?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Oct 2012, 02:27
I think Tova is asking about published research into any link between the depiction of violence and similar violence in real life - in other words, proof or not that a comic like this has a deleterious effect on society.  The problem with that is that, as you suggest, this type of research tends not to be definitive; for instance, much research has been published to suggest that violence on TV has little influence on the attitudes to violence of children who have watched it, but some recent research has come very strongly to the opposite conclusion.  However, either way, it seems reasonable to suppose that any such effect would be far more significant for exposure during the period of formation of a child's character than for exposure as a fully-formed adult - QC is, of course an adult cartoon rather than one for children.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 07 Oct 2012, 03:23
So, has anyone ever tried horse burger before?




*Totally not a flippant attempt at a thread hijack away from a subject debated ad nauseum in the past to the point where insisting on bringing it up despite the disinterest in debating it yet again and getting nowhere constructive due to radically differing agendas and perceptions has become a forum faux paus.

**Might be sarcasm.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: WAYF on 07 Oct 2012, 03:43
Is that a burger made with horse? Or is it something else which is not at all horse related?
I ask because hamburgers are generally, as I understand it, made out of beef.

I can't say I've ever had a horse burger before, but last night I tried tapioca for the first time. It goes deliciously with nutmeg and ice cream.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 07 Oct 2012, 04:54
No, but we used to tease a girl in my IT class at school about the number of burgers you could get out of a horse. As for tapioca, it does indeed taste good with nutmeg, though I've never tried it with ice cream.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 07 Oct 2012, 04:55
If hamburgers are made out of beef, then maybe horse burgers are made out of duck or something.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Oct 2012, 05:09
But hamburgers and beefburgers are both made of cow… :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Oct 2012, 05:31
DNR, perhaps a dive through previous WCDTs might yield the answers you're looking for, as far as how far discussions have gone in the past, and might give a bit of a sense of closure to said discussion if you read what's come before? As I've said, I'm pretty new here, so I wouldn't personally know where to begin. But some of the veterans of the site might be able to give you an approximate timeframe for which to begin your search.

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html for example.

Good grief, there's barely anyone in that thread that's posting in here anymore! 

My, how things have changed...
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Oct 2012, 05:40
Good grief, there's barely anyone in that thread that's posting in here anymore!

Of course, this means that saying that the subject has been done to death is a bit pointless.  It has been raised more recently, but not discussed at any great length.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Oct 2012, 09:27
A horse burger is someone who burgs horses, of course. Trying a horse burger means putting one on trial.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Oct 2012, 09:29
A horse burger is someone who burgs horses, of course. Trying a horse burger means putting one on trial.

I read your "horse burger" as something completely different. 



Bugger. 
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Oct 2012, 09:44
The mental picture of a horse picking its nose is a vivid one.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Pilchard123 on 07 Oct 2012, 09:55
It wasn't a horse picking its nose, I think. Not with the rest of that post.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Oct 2012, 10:23
While you're horsing around, I'll consider when to get that packet of horse meat that I got in France out of the freezer.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Welu on 07 Oct 2012, 10:30
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html for example.

Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jwhouk on 07 Oct 2012, 10:46
And The MOMENT OF THE WEEK was?

Marigold's OOPS!    0 (0%)
The entire internet is mad at me!    1 (2.7%)
Only one thing to do: Cat GIFs? LOTS of Cat GIFs.    2 (5.4%)
Here, Marten! Open it and see! Tee hee!    1 (2.7%)
Oh, hey, Emily invited you too!    0 (0%)
Yeah, what'd you think it was, a love letter?    0 (0%)
OH MY GOD YOU ARE PRECIOUS (Sh-shut up! Shut it all the way up!)    8 (21.6%)
Party at Emily Azuma's parent's lake house! (And Cristi's handwriting!)    2 (5.4%)
You should invite all your friends, too! There's plenty of room!    0 (0%)
A thousand people would probably be too many. (How big is your parents' lake house?)    0 (0%)
Faye with the watiress outfit - "Hey, Buttass, what's up?"    2 (5.4%)
Emily the intern is throwing a party, wanna come?    0 (0%)
Dora: Am I invited? Marten: Oh yeah, def- (Tai: AAH! AAAAH!)    1 (2.7%)
Tai: One of my interns is throwing a party. Wanna come?    1 (2.7%)
Marigold walks by. (DAT A$$)    12 (32.4%)
Angus gets caught "peeking"    2 (5.4%)
GIBBS-SMACK!    3 (8.1%)
What was that? NOTHING!    2 (5.4%)

Total Members Voted: 37
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Oct 2012, 11:37
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html) for example.

Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.
Always nice to be appreciated :)
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 07 Oct 2012, 16:09
Whoa, the discussion style in that thread makes me really appreciate the current mods.

Agreed. I wasn't going to read it, but after seeing your post, I decided to take a look. I barely got to the end of the first page. Ugh.

Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ponderch3rry on 07 Oct 2012, 16:36
boob-tube
That's an article of clothing? I thought "boob-tube" meant television.

Probably an alternate to 'tube top', which is, quite literally, a boob tube  :-D


Hahaha yes, also known as a tube top! Everything is more crass in Australia  8-)

Also, a nice slang here for the television set is the "idiot box"  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ponderch3rry on 07 Oct 2012, 16:43
To be honest, I was more disturbed by the fact that Angus was perving on his housemate than by Faye smacking him. I've lived with many housemates of the opposite sex and thinking that they ever perved on my big arse whilst I was wearing shorts kind of creeps me out, heh.

With the whole domestic violence thing, my partner and I wrestle about sometimes and we'll give each other a punch on the shoulder from time-to-time, though always in a playful manner. I think it's important that violence against men is not treated lightly (equality of the sexes and all that) but I think we can hardly call what happened in this strip "domestic violence". If she had slapped him across the face or something, then maybe, but I certainly wouldn't say that a little flick in the ear is serious enough to bring up such a heavy discussion.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Oct 2012, 20:24
I'd hardly call what he did "perving". Seems a but strong of a word.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ponderch3rry on 07 Oct 2012, 20:42
I'd hardly call what he did "perving". Seems a but strong of a word.

I think that's exactly what he did, unless you're implying that he was just admiring the colour of her shorts?

perv  (pɜːv)
 
— n
1.    a pervert
2.    ( Austral ) an erotic glance or look


I also reject that it's a strong word to use in a situation such as this. I think it's a word purely to describe what he was doing and don't think it was derogatory in any way.

How would you describe what's occurring in the second panel?
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Omega Entity on 07 Oct 2012, 20:51

Also, a nice slang here for the television set is the "idiot box"  :-D

Yep, you hear that one here in the States too  :-)

As for a better term, I'd probably call it ogling, or simply 'admiring the view'. Perving, and also leering, at least over here, carries a negative connotation, and to say that Angus if is 'perving' on Marigold, reads to me that he wants to make a pass at her or bang her.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 07 Oct 2012, 21:01
As for a better term, I'd probably call it ogling, or simply 'admiring the view'.

"Perving" is a perfectly good term for those things. It wouldn't imply any more than that in Australia IMO.

Then again, we throw around words like "bugger" as well, so meh.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: ponderch3rry on 07 Oct 2012, 21:31

Also, a nice slang here for the television set is the "idiot box"  :-D

Yep, you hear that one here in the States too  :-)

Ah, I see! So it's just boob tube that's a bit odd when one refers to a piece of clothing in the USA, good to know :D

As for a better term, I'd probably call it ogling, or simply 'admiring the view'.

"Perving" is a perfectly good term for those things. It wouldn't imply any more than that in Australia IMO.

Must be an Australian thing, eh? We say someone is perving on another person when they're checking them out. Like Tova says, it implies no further connotations than that.

Confusion = Sorted!  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Overkillengine on 07 Oct 2012, 21:52
DNR, perhaps a dive through previous WCDTs might yield the answers you're looking for, as far as how far discussions have gone in the past, and might give a bit of a sense of closure to said discussion if you read what's come before? As I've said, I'm pretty new here, so I wouldn't personally know where to begin. But some of the veterans of the site might be able to give you an approximate timeframe for which to begin your search.

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,22409.0.html for example.

Good grief, there's barely anyone in that thread that's posting in here anymore! 

My, how things have changed...

Well, I and I assume other have lurked since well before then.

The amount of bile/strife/RAAAAAAGE that cropped up over things that should not be taken as seriously as they were really discouraged participation though.


And to add to burger related discussion: Deer burger is great, though usually you need some animal fat added from another meat type to keep it from being too dry.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Oct 2012, 23:18
Buffalo burgers = wonderful.

Re: "perving", if the word shares a definition with "pervert", I don't see how there's no negative connotation, but it's really just semantics at this point.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: Tova on 10 Oct 2012, 02:38
Well, the word "bugger" isn't exactly polite if you look at its meaning, but it is such a mild curse in Australia that it was the centre-piece of a particularly well-known advertisement.

Slang isn't necessarily logical.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 10 Oct 2012, 04:16
Well, the word "bugger" isn't exactly polite if you look at its meaning, but it is such a mild curse in Australia that it was the centre-piece of a particularly well-known advertisement.

Slang isn't necessarily logical.
True. When we say "bugger the thing" when, for example, your phone slips out of your hand (but doesn't break), it's just to say that something was "unexpected, a little annoying, but not actually bad". It's not to say that we want to sodomise it or anything (when you actually look at the uses of the word "bugger")...

Well, for the normal folk of us here, anyway.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: jmucchiello on 10 Oct 2012, 10:25
Quote
True. When we say "Fuck" when, for example, your phone slips out of your hand (but doesn't break), it's just to say that something was "unexpected, a little annoying, but not actually bad". It's not to say that we want to fornicate with it or anything
Quote
True. When we say "Damn It" when, for example, your phone slips out of your hand (but doesn't break), it's just to say that something was "unexpected, a little annoying, but not actually bad". It's not to say that we want the phone tossed into Hell where it can suffer for all eternity or anything
So are Fuck and Bugger equivalent in their "acceptability" in your example usage? I doubt it. As someone above said, Slang is not logical.

Oh, and many gourmet burgers are a mix of ground beef and ground pork.
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: techkid on 11 Oct 2012, 02:48
Whatever floats your boat, jmucchiello :) .

Seriously, though, one mans' mild curse is another mans' swearing is another mans' fucking punctuation, damn it. There really aren't that many rules to the English language that two different people can agree upon (except maybe using L3375P33K and "txt shrthnd" being made into criminal offences or something).
Title: Re: WCDT: 2286-90 (1-5 October 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Post by: DSL on 11 Oct 2012, 07:02
One of my favorite jokes to tell (in the right company) concerns a soldier back in the barracks after an afternoon pass to town, describing to his buddies how he got on the bus, went to town, met a girl, had a milkshake with her, went to her apartment and convinced her to disrobe. The account is lengthy and the gerund form of the f-bomb is liberally interspersed throughout as a mild intensifier. The teller pauses at the cliffhanger moment and his buddies anxiously ask: "And? And? What did you do then?"
And the answer is: "What do you f***in' think we did, you f***in' jerks? We had sexual intercourse."

It's in Asimov's first joke book. He ruins it by explaining it.